Talk:Astrology/Archive 10

Section trim

Section "Claims about obstacles to research" is much too long considering it is not directly about the subject of astrology, only claims of obstacle to research on the subject. A single paragraph should be sufficient and easily obtainable once all the OR is cut out. Jefffire 11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the tit for tat CSICOP bit should go. It's belongs on a sub-article. Marskell 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the sub-article idea. Perhaps put the "Claims about obstacles to research", CSICOP stuff etc. in a sub-article rather than removing completely. DavidCochrane 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really all based on the opinions of a small number of researchers, so I think it's unbefitting of an encyclopedia and I'm not keen to create a tiny stub article just for that. I'll do some heavy trimming, and if a home can be found for it then it can be recovered from the history files. Jefffire 11:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues of what astrology is, why astrology has not been validated scientifically or whether it will ever be validated, etc., are red-hot and critically important in the astrological community. These are issues that are addressed and discussed at length by astrologers. Current thinking in astrology is NOT a blind application of unvalidated ideas in a pseudosientific manner. The excellent information currently in the article accurately reflects the various opinions and perspectives. I think it is unfortunate that this valuable information is being removed, but I cannot claim to have an objective view of what is most relevant and important material for the encyclopedia. I am speaking from the minority view of astrologers. I think that most astrologers would agree with me. However, if the majority view from the academic non-astrologer's point of view is that this material is better removed, then go ahead and do what you think is best. I just want to make sure that the view from the point of view of astrologers has been presented for consideration. I have saved a copy of the article as it is because it is superb, and this removal of important information is, at least in my opinion, removing information that is appropriate for a general introduction to astrology and the current status of astrology in the modern world. DavidCochrane 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

David, don't forget that Crawford's market report has been voted one of the top 3 stock market prognosticators year-after-year. And with the gazillion rabbits I've pulled out of an astological hat in my readings since 1969: I don't need to justify my existence behind the phrase "scientific method." The word "empirical" satisfies me. In fact, Louis Freeh, former FBI director, refers to me as "He's the Southwest's early warning system." Gee, I wonder how many of the psuedo-academics who spam here can make that claim? Andrew Homer 11:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

David, if you disagree with some of my changes then I am very much open for discussing them. In the absence of some of the more polarising elements, I think such a discussion is very much possible (There is also no need to save the information as barring a deletion it will be stored safely in Wikipedia's archives). Jefffire 11:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree that you and other astrologers do not need to pursue the scientific method, but until astrology does astrology cannot claim to be a science. "Scientific method" is a formal set of procedures that are clearly defined, and is not just a phase to hide behind. I am developing software to test various theories. For example, I recently found (this is not in print yet) Bradley's formula for the DJIA worked with statistical significance in the 1970's (after his book was written) which is impressive, but the formula has not worked since then. I plan to contact Arch and see if I can get his complete formula and test it. The bottom line is that like you, I know astrology works from my personal work with it, but until astrology is validated in controlled studies or controlled observations, astrology is not yet a science. The Gauquelin studies almost, but not quite, put astrology in the category of being a science. There is also a growing movement among astrologers that asserts that astrology lies outside the domain of science, although I personally disagree with this. So continue moving forward with the important work you do. All of us have a part to play. I was a practicing astrologer in the 70's but since then am focusing on software and validation of astrology, which are also important.

The word "empirical" hasn't been discredited, yet. So, until the day arrives that newly invented testing equipment can validate Astrology so as to placate the so-called scientists, I'll continue to defend my Astrology with the word "empirical." Andrew Homer 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeffire, thanks for the welcome to discuss issues. I will continue the discussion little by little, as I find time. The most important point right now is that I think that what astrologers do and what astrologers believe can be quite different from what non-astrologers may think they do, and some of the material in the article may seem to be superfluous, but most it hits right on major issues that astrologers currently are deeply involved with. DavidCochrane 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific proof

This morning I woke up to the first indisputable scientific proof of some of astrology's major claims in five thousand years of written history.

This particular line of inquiry was started 29.5 years ago (one Saturn cycle), and significantly augmented 11.9 years ago (one Jupiter cycle). No doubt I have arrived in this life with ample preparation for the moment.

I am not making this up, and I'm not exaggerating (unless of course my interpretation of the data is faulty). Although the investigation in this form has just started, I can already see strong confirmation for the signs of the zodiac, rulerships, and houses. The current setup is geocentric, tropical, planetary (Placidus) houses and traditional rulers, but this doesn't preclude the potential validity of other systems (they will be tested in due course). I should also note that, while strong (3 sigma) correlation exists between certain combinations of the above mentioned factors and certain earthly events, interpretation of celestial phenomena may markedly differ from what astrologers are generally used to. I haven't yet had enough time to look at the data to say either way for sure.

Times are extremely exciting, to say the least. I will therefore devote my efforts to where they are most effective. I may pop in here, too, sometimes, but it will be more conducive to the well-being of humanity if I simply publish the results in a reliable source. :)

"He who has ears, let him hear."

Happy editing! Aquirata 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

5000 years of written history? You assume an unbroken tradition. In the Sumerian/Babylonian/Greek/Indian line, I can't think of a single thing, except the general importance of the sun, moon and seasons that has not changed, not even the basic meanings and associations of the planets. You are aware that the 12 sign zod did not come into existence until approx. 7th century BCE? Good luck with the publishing. Zeusnoos 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I speak for everyone here who you have been more than unpleasant with and/or made personal attacks on during the course of your sophistry when I say... good riddance Aquirata. --Chris Brennan 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The delusions of grandeur finally revealed? Marskell 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I too will bid this section adieu, though like Aquirata, I may drop in from time to time. I have learned a lot from the experience of contributing and editing. For the most part I enjoyed the dialog and exchanges. I would say that it has been an interesting battle of vision versus rules. With my colleagues in this effort (and I include you all), I've tried to find the middle way whereby vision can be understood while staying within the rules. You have all helped me. This section on astrology and science has improved from when I first got involved, but it has now reached a psychological barrier that I don't believe it's going to get through.

I believe this barrier has something to do with the perceived belief that astrology should have a mechanism, and I haven't been able yet to put my finger directly on the psychology of this issue. Though it stops many scientists cold, the mechanism argument really does not belong here at all. Since Newton, science has prefered mathematical relationships over causal mechanisms. With quantum physics, even relational math gave way to a preferred epistimology of statistical reality. The patterns of chaos physics are taking scientific preference even farther from mechanistic and mathematical determinism. Causal mechanism is not a scientific argument. Yet it crops up here as if it holds ultimate authority. Why? When it comes to astrology, there's an anchor holding us way back in the past, and it needs to be brought into the present.

As an astrologer I am very interested in how people think and what they believe. This exercise has given me a glimpse into the minds of others that I would get nowhere else and I am grateful for the opportunity to share mind. I plan to devote more of my time to theory and papers that I have been trying to finish and get published. This article was unlocked when Mercury went retrograde. Now Mercury is about to go direct. Let's see what happens. Thanks again. I love you all. Piper Almanac 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Brown did a number of experiments in the 50s involving oysters and crabs. He found that oysters, contrary to the scientific belief of the day, open and close their shells in syncronicity with tidal forces. Before his experiments, it was believed that oysters opened and closed their shells due to the physical forces of the tidal waters at the ocean. However, placing them in a controlled environment without the waves and currents of the ocean proved otherwise.

While this does not prove the practice of astrology, it suggests that tidal forces do indeed have an impact on biological organisms, which belies physical explanation, according to nearly all astrophysicists.

These experiments are well known in Biology, and as far as I know, undisputed in their findings. I will dig up some relevant source material.

I'm thinking that I should add to the "Research claims and counter-claims" section a short blurb explaining Frank Brown's experiments. However, as it doesn't exactly pertain to astrology, as practiced, I'm not sure if this is correct. Comments? (currently anon, soon to be a real user, I'll add my username shortly)

I read Brown's studies on these 'circadian' rhythms - a professor I worked for as a research assistant in psychology used them and other similar cosmo-geo cyclical studies as the basis for his work. They have little, though, to do with astrology - the only similarity is the proposition that there are cycles connected in some way to the sun's and possibly the Moon's force upon earth. Such natural cycles do not pertain to how astrology might interpret them as well as non-natural symbolic methods (which makes up most of astrology), or how interpretations develop through history. If, for instance, a scientific consensus is formed, one that says the Moon does in fact affect human biological and psychological states, astrology is not proven since it has nothing to do with the symbolism of say secondary progressions, or the meanings of the 12 houses or signs, or other popular astrological techniques for prediction. Zeusnoos 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "The scientific community considers astrology to be a pseudoscience" has 2 references, but I did not find any documentation in these references of the statement. The phrase "where it has commented" which was recently removed was helpful because the scientific community's statements about astrology being a pseudoscience have typically been volunteer samples, and I do not believe we have any data on what the majority of scientists believe in regards to astrology. I suspect that the majority are agnostic on the subject and do not regard astrology as a pseudoscience, but that is only my anecdotal evidence, which is of no more validity than the belief that "the scientific community" (which I interpret loosely as "the majority of scientists") believe astrology is a pseudoscience. Opinions seem to vary in different countries also. I have found many central European scientists, for example, to be more skeptical of modern psychology than astrology. We need documented data, not personal assumptions and anecdotal evidence, on this. If we have the data to support the statement, I have no problem with it and, in act, it would be a useful and helpful statement, but without proper references it is a statement not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Perhaps I did not read the references thoroughly and the documentation is there, or perhaps I am overlooking some detail that justifies this statement as being appropriate. DavidCochrane 11:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of this pseudo-academic wrangling. As I've said on innumerable occasions, Wikipedia should not seek to be simply a democratic exercise in knowledge databasing ("Wikiality") but also should seek to forward rationality and, dare I say, sapience. Superstition and mystification of phenomenon have no place here. Don't legitimize this as science just so you can sleep better at night. Ascribing causality without due justification is called wishful thinking, and is injurious to the psyche. Any internally valid system that one sets up to ascribe causality, will do so seemingly effectively, especially if said system is based on some elementary emperical observations, no matter HOW specious or dubious. -TheT

p.s. Central European scientists? Are you kidding? As a bona-fide scientist, you can quote me: the scientific community en-masse shuns astrology as not even pseudoscience, but as wholly specious and even dubious. Since astrology is unfalsifiable (as are most spiritual beliefs) the best you can get as a primary reference is anecdotal snippets from scientists, as the scientific community as a whole cannot legitimately take up un-falsifiable topics. "None but ourselves can free our minds."

Superstition category

The superstition page says, A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.. Astrology perfectly fits the category, so I'm putting back the cat.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at wikiality in the Urban Dictionary.

wikiality Reality as decided on by majority rule. Based off wikipedia's 'majority rule' fact. Featured on The Colbert Report July 31, 2006. Wikiality refers to the changing of reality or truth via a Wikipedia-like system, allowing the public to change facts as long as there are others that agree. Piper Almanac 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. For example, I could quote the Urban

Dictionary definition (which I don't agree with) of astrology, Superstition popular with teenage girls and morons.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition given of superstition deals specifically with behavior as the cause. I think this is a narrow definition of superstition since behavior implies the behavior of the superstitee. For instance, a black cat crossing ones path, or a bird flying in the house are both superstitious symbols of bad luck that will befall, but no behavior is needed except the believe. Friday the 13th as bad luck involves no behavior at all. Furthermore, superstition usually involves fear - fear of something bad happening if some symbolic event happens or if someone does or does not do something (step on a crack). Given this, I don't think astrology falls in the category of superstition because astrological symbolism may or may not be treated superstitiously. Treating astrological superstitiously means following behaviors based on the belief. For example, an astrologer may treat Mercury retrograde superstitiously by not driving for 3 weeks or not mailing any letters for 3 weeks. Another astrologer may continue life as usually, but his belief that Mercury retrograde symbolizes lost letters and auto accidents will put him on the alert for such things or expect such things (no behavior required but belief). A third astrologer may believe that Mercury retrograde does not inherently means these things will happen, but she will interpret the symbolism in another way, such as revisiting old matters, or something else benign. Astrological beliefs may be treated with greater or lesser degrees of superstition. Perhaps superstition should be defined more rigorously before astrology is added. Most superstitions involve good or bad luck while astrological symbolism is more varied than that, and the same astrological event is interpreted differently by different astrologers. Zeusnoos 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You could also question the causal aspect of this definition. Empirically, the planets are causes, it's just that as with gravity there's no causal mechanism by which behavior is transmitted from point A to point B. Piper Almanac 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)t

I would certainly question the causal aspect of the definition (but not because, as you think, planets are causes). How can anyone assume that a superstitious person thinks that a black cat crossing causes bad luck rather than 'means' or 'signifies' it? This goes back to the ancient debate over aitiai and semainai (causes versus giving signs). Zeusnoos 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it assumes that superstitous have causes. It merely says that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Influence means participating in causality, even if an influence is a cause among many causes. More on your question below... Zeusnoos 14:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Category:Superstition. I'm sure that people not versed in Astrology are willing to site the belief as "irrational", however, unless you're willing to add the Category to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism; don't add it here. I'm not saying that Astrology is a religion, but I'm saying the basis for categorizing it as a superstition are identical. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that astrology is irrational, becuase it believes in the supernatural without (scientific) evidence. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, VorpalBlade, you may want to put this category on the Prayer article as well. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done :) Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat editting is not good practice. Just because you think that astrology is as superstitious as prayer, Christianity, etc. doesn't mean that since those pages don't offer the category neither should this one. Discuss the merits of this article and leave the hand-wringing over whether the other articles are about superstitions to their talkpages. As this rationale doesn't pass the mustard, reversion has commenced. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well, by merits of your arguments, superstitions require the term "irrational". I encourage you to explain why this is irrational without insulting the people with whom you are edit-warring. There is clearly enough merit for its removal, as well, so please don't continue to add it in. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an irrational belief in the same sense that it is a pseudoscience. The question of rationality either boils down to whether it conforms to a scientific understanding of reality or whether it is externally consistent. Since astrology fancies itself as a manifestation of observable properties, it is only proper that we ask the question whether there is any observational evidence for it. Since there isn't any found by neutral investigators, the belief is irrational (in that it is simply not scientific). --ScienceApologist 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's another possible explaination. Since the U.S. Patent Office is still open to recieve more invention applications, I'm going to assume that there may still be more research tools that have yet to be invented. Stay tuned and perhaps the so-called scientists may some day catch up with the Astrologers empiricism and give the "scientific method" explaination as to why Astrology DOES work. What your limited faculties calls "pseudoscience," my foresight calls "pre-science." Andrew Homer 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific does not equate to irrational, in the same way that rational does not equal scientific. Scientific results can still be incorrect. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct is not the issue. Rationality can either mean logical or related to reality. In the sense that astrology makes claims about observable features of reality it is not rational for the same reasons it is not scientific. --ScienceApologist 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Related to reality is another way of saying empirical. To an astrologer, astrology is 'empirical' because it is experienced (and, I'm certain, shapes the astrologer's reality). This type of empiricism is not scientific (controlled neutral study) but it is to the observer/astrology a collection of 5 white swans and no black ones, generalized to the statement that all or most swans are white, so we can expect the next swan to be white. That doesn't make it correct, but it doesn't make it irrational, just non-scientific. Zeusnoos 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeusnoos, I don't understand what you said above. Can you elaborate? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Let me say first that I'm not an astrologer but I have studied astrology for a number of years. While I do not believe astrology is a science or that it could be proven to be a science in the future, I do not at this time agree that it should be categorized as superstition for the following reasons. (I could be persuaded otherwise if superstition and irrational are more carefully defined.) Furthermore, the category of irrational fits in the context of astrology versus science, but not in the context of what actually happens in astrological belief which does involve a consensus reality and type of empiricism, albeit a marginal one. Most superstitions are isolated cases of an event (black cat crossing ones path) that is interpreted as meaning something good or bad, or of a ritualistic action that is taken to prevent bad luck (the groom not seeing the bride before the wedding), or the belief that not taking such an action (that of separating the to-be-betrothed) will result in bad luck. When we speak of the empiricism of the link between the omen or ritual and the good or bad luck, if such luck later befalls, the superstitious person will say 'see, the black cat indicated this would happen!" Luck or chance, as an isolated omenic or ritualistic event, one that cannot be repeated or falsified, is typically the theme of superstition, and astrology as a whole says little about incidental luck or chance. However, an astrologer can be superstitious (as I said above there are varying degrees of superstitious treatment of astrology) when they say "See, Mercury Retrograde caused my computer to fail!" However, to the astrologer, this does not conflict with rational 'scientific' causes such as failure to update antivirus definitions, but Mercury retrograde symbolized the event even if the astrologer uses the inescapable causal language to describe it. Some astrologers think it is causal, some do not. In comparison to the isolated superstitions, astrologers believe in astrology because their empirical experience proves astrology to them consistently and repetitively in everything (this is obviously non-falsifiable and pseudoscience IMO). The symbols are flexible enough to handle nearly everything - their entire reality is interpreted by the interaction of these symbols. It is a consensus reality because astrologers typically hang with other astrologers and share a basic agreement on the symbols, but not on the details. Astrologers would not be so fanatical in their beliefs if this empirical 'evidence' were weak. On the white swan thing (crows would be a better example since there are in fact brownish-black swans), this type of empiricism, from the perspective of the astrologer, is largely inductive, and a black crow will be predicted rather than a white crow. A white crow in astrologese might be something like "Saturn square Mars means a harmonious time." The nature of the symbolism itself is neither inductive or deductive, but based on rationales created in different periods in the history of astrology. The aspect doctrine was based on Neopythagorean theories of harmonics. I expect astrologers will disagree with me, but I agree with them on superstition (not to make astrology more favorable) because superstition is too narrow to define astrology. Zeusnoos 14:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, our own article on Superstition says that astrology is a superstition. Also, it seems by defintion the two are the same. That is, astrology that says that certain alignments of stars at the time of one's birth has an effect on personality. This seems to be the definition of irrational. JPotter 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Empiricism is irrational when it does not accept the collaborative empirical contributions that have been offered with regards to a subject. The whole point of rational empricism is that ideas based on isolated personal experiences do not count if they contradict the collective sensory exploration of the universe, and they can be explained by alternative explanations that do not contradict other empirical investigations. Astrology may be based on empiricism, but it is an irrational empiricism because it is dismissive of collaborative empirical evidence to the contrary. --ScienceApologist 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the type of "empiricism" in your family. Those of us with integrity will stick to the definition of empiricism that's in the dictionary. Andrew Homer 04:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Collaborative empirical contributions": what are you referring to? There aren't any that invalidate astrology. The most thorough analysis of astrology is the Gauquelin studies which are inconclusive and clearly involved more ethical violations by the skeptics than the believers. "astrology that says that certain alignments of stars at the time of one's birth has an effect on personality. This seems to be the definition of irrational": Not true. Common sense does not equal irrational; otherwise relativity and quantum mechanics are irrational and we need a superstition link on these pages as well. The skeptics obviously have not read the writings of leading astrologers (like winners of the Regulus awards, etc.) and a study of Cornelius's The Moment of Astrology, etc. will reveal that leading astrologers are typically erudite, intelligent, and have outstanding critical thinking skills, so astrology may or may not valid, but is clearly not superstition as practiced and understood by leading astrologers today. Anyone who reads Hand, Cornelius, Curry, or any of the other leading thinkers on the subject will see that astrology is not superstition. The skeptics should read these authors before commenting and editing this article. The Wikipedia guideline to present the majority view is not a license for editing without fully studying the subject. DavidCochrane 09:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There have been numerous studies where astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness. Also, knowing the subject isn't necessary to see if it's predictions are true or not. For instance, one doesn't need to know about astrology to verify if it's predictions are true. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you left out the part about the research that has verified portions of astrological claims. You wouldn't happen to either have an axe to grind or be under-informed on this topic would you? How about going to the part of Wikipedia where you actually might know the topic? Andrew Homer 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, skeptics should read most of the material in the footnotes in the astrology article, including the article by Victor Mansfield and the one by myself and other articles that I have written. After a few years of study of astrology so that you really understand the subject, I can almost guarantee that you will not believe that all astrologers are irrational or involved in superstitions, even if you still not agree with all of the rest of their conclusions. As one concrete example: how do you find my study on physicists irrational, and the implications of this study irrational and a form of superstition? BTW, many thanks to all of the astrologers who have participated in the editing and discussions. It is tedious to go over these fundamentals that have been treated in detail in many books and journal articles. I do not know if I will participate very much in these discussions in the future; there is a strong irrational element, i.e.self-proclaimed expertise and wisdom in astrology and epistemology without having first invested the time necessary to gain expertise, and conducting an intelligent dialogue with ill-prepared "experts" is a futile exercise. One more example is the constant references to causality by the skeptics, when just one undergraduate course in the history and philosophy of science reveals that causality is sorely lacking in much of science, such as in Newton's theory of gravity, which is plagued by the dreaded action at a distance problem. To have intelligent discussion on astrology, we need to get past these fundamentals which the skeptics keep bringing up and have been addressed ad nauseum already in scholarly works on epistemology, the nature of science, and the nature of astrology. Again, starting with the footnotes in the astrology article is a good place to start. DavidCochrane 10:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also on a required reading list for understanding the relationship of astrology to science are the series of articles by Glenn Perry in the ISAR Journal over the past year. Richard Tarnas's books also give a good perspective on the development of human thought in relatinship to astrology. There are many other excellent works that provide a foundation for this subject. DavidCochrane 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As a chronic contrarian, I have no problem as an Astrologer bragging that I'm practicing a religion: the most muscle-bound religion on the planet with much more empirical validation than any other religion can provide. Andrew Homer 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(COPIED FROM ABOVE) I'm sick of this pseudo-academic wrangling. As I've said on innumerable occasions, Wikipedia should not seek to be simply a democratic exercise in knowledge databasing ("Wikiality") but also should seek to forward rationality and, dare I say, sapience. Superstition and mystification of phenomenon have no place here. Don't legitimize this as science just so you can sleep better at night. Ascribing causality without due justification is called wishful thinking, and is injurious to the psyche. Any internally valid system that one sets up to ascribe causality, will do so seemingly effectively, especially if said system is based on some elementary emperical observations, no matter HOW specious or dubious. -TheT

... As a bona-fide scientist, you can quote me: the scientific community en-masse shuns astrology as not even pseudoscience, but as wholly specious and even dubious. Since astrology is unfalsifiable (as are most spiritual beliefs) the best you can get as a primary reference is anecdotal snippets from scientists, as the scientific community as a whole cannot legitimately take up un-falsifiable topics. "None but ourselves can free our minds."

I removed the category on August 20th, 2006 after removing it many times as an Anon-user -- I will continue removing it because Astrology as I and MANY other astrologers practice it is not "...an irrational belief or a set of behaviors that [is] related to magical thinking..." As long as this remains in the definition of "superstition" in the category header, Astrology does not belong there. To me, Astrology is nothing "magical," nor do I believe it to be "irrational" because it's largely based on the highly predictable orbits and the geometric/harmonic astrological aspects that the planets make; for me and other reputable practitioners, astrology is all math. And people don't call math "irrational" and "magical," do they? --Pseudothyrum 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is definitely not "all math" because most of astrology is based upon making correspondence between celestial mechanics and the physically unrelated personal and social events of people's lives. This makes astrology irrational and superstitious by definition. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Straw man" arguement. You're still operating on the erroneous assumption that every research tool that could be invented has already been invented. Where's your proof that there isn't a connection between the "harmony of the spheres" (Kepler) and social events? Since every breakthrough in physics has NOT discredited Astrology, you're putting yourself onto a limb smearing Astrology as being a superstition. It's irrational to worship "sciencism." It's the debunkers of this topic who are in denial. Andrew Homer 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is itself the ultimate strawman: it's an evasive excuse employed most often when pseudoskeptics demand proof of impossibility from fundamentally inductive observations. There's equally no evidence for every other superstition that exists. --ScienceApologist 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The divergence

The "modern era" topic begins by suggesting that reductionist methodology and objective materialistic interpretation are responsible for the divergence that made astronomy a science and astrology an "occult science or superstition". But astrology also participated in these same reductionist and objectivist trends, so this alone does not explain the divergence. Further research is needed to understand this area. Piper Almanac 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the sentence deals with newly emerging scientific disciplines, and the development of the scientific method. Astrology did not participate in this trend. I've changed the sentence accordingly.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious, if you've studied the power plays of the Roman emperors and then those of the Holy See. Both the emperors and the popes banned the use of Astrologers for their political opponents, but had their own court Astrologers. Dissing Astrology to the point of discrediting it and even making it outlaw was a way to keep those ambitious to also be under informed. Now days it appears the ignorance is self-imposed - as noted by the spammers in this article who brag about not even to bother to examine the topic. As J.P. Morgan said, "Millionaires don't use Astrologers. Billionaires do." Andrew Homer 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reword, "method of systematic empirical induction validated by experimental observations" still does not explain the divergence. Astrology used similar methods of improvement based on empirical induction. The competing almanacs and prognostications of the time were only as good as their accuracy. Is not the publication of prognostications an experiment that is validated by increase or decreased demand in the market? If anything, the publication of detailed information that is of vital interest to the public and is closely scrutinized for accuracy based on observation goes counter to superstition. There is a flaw in the reasoning as stated in the article. Piper Almanac 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Emphatically not! Astrology did not use methods of empirical validation of hypotheisis during the scientific revolution. You said, "If anything, the publication of detailed information that is of vital interest to the public and is closely scrutinized for accuracy based on observation goes counter to superstition. There is a flaw in the reasoning as stated in the article"

The point is, astrology is not closely scrutinized for accuracy based on observation. The results of experimental tests which show that astrology has no effect have largely been ignored by most astrologers, and the way astrology is practised remains pretty much unchanged despite contradicting experimental evidence. This is why, while newly emerging scientific disciplines acquired a method of systematic empirical induction validated by experimental observations, astrology did not and diverged into a superstition. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 11:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To a large extent I agree with this statement. Astrology is an unregulated field and these statements are true for some inadequately trained astrologers, and perhaps even the majority of astrologers. However, leading astrological organizations, like ISAR and NCGR, have responded to scientific studies, and are now requiring ethics and counseling training, and using listening skills rather than making specific predictions or unqualified statements during an astrological consultation to fulfill requirements for their certification programs. Some leading astrologers (Curry, Cornelius, Campion, etc.) view astrology as lacking objective validity, so in some ways their views are closer to the skeptics than to "true believers" in astrology. Some astrologers are conducting studies using more sophisticated mathematical models than previously used in astrological research. These are concrete and real responses by astrologers to the mostly negative results of scientific research. DavidCochrane 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto?

If astrologers are using these planets, then why didn't they discover (or postulate) them before they were discovered by astronomers? Count Iblis 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, astrologers were not using these planets before they were discovered by astronomers because they did not know those planets existed. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 05:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If they did not use the planets before, all their previous work would be (partially) incorect or at least incomplete. Then, if they do know about planets before the astronomers, what can they tell us about the planets that we're still missing. Many astronomers actually believe that there are some planets yet to be found.130.234.198.85 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Only "some planets?" Heard of the Oort Cloud & Kuiper Belt Objects? Welcome to the recent discoveries of Sedna, Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna, Eris, and Orcus. Andrew Homer 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrologers might not think so. In fact, there is a type of astrology invented in Germany in the 20's that uses a series of hypothetical planets. There are some astrologers today who do not use any outer planets because they are practicing a type of astrology (such as horary) invented before the 18th century. Zeusnoos 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't studied the literature. Are you another one of those pretend authorities who don't need to study the topic on which you expound an opinion? Did the folk on the Talk:Soccer article kick you out? Andrew Homer 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Homer, stop making personal attacks, and be civil.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 05:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What is that you say? A type of Astrology was "invented" in Germany? And again you say: "...astrology (such as horary) inveted before the 18th century." If you say that these two versions of astrology were "invented", are you implying that all astrology was invented? And if not, then you must be assuming that some are indeed fictious (such as horary, as stated above), for surely something supposedly as real as astrology cannot be "invented", but instead it must be discovered. And what about the constellation Ophiuchus? Ophiuchus is contained within the ecliptic and yet it is not part of the Zodiac. Why did astrologers decide to leave it out? Is it because they were unaware of its existence? Does a constellation only affect you if the astrologers are aware of it? Another reason why astrology has no basis is because the Zodiac is only accurate to when astrology was invented (ex: If you were born on April 15th, say, then astrologically, you would be Aries. But astronomically, you would be Pisces. Which is it? Are you really an Aries, or a Pisces? If you were born on April 15th, then Pisces would have the affect on you because the sun was in Pisces when you were born.). Also, 2006 redefinition of planet explains that on August 24 of this year, a decision will be made on whether to set a definition for "planet" which has the potential of causing there to be 12 planets instead of 9 (not counting Sedna). Will this affect astrology? If not, why not? User:Walkinglikeahuricane 5:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy, you ask a lot of questions! Answers will depend on who you ask.

"If you say that these two versions of astrology were "invented", are you implying that all astrology was invented?" Of course it was. Astrology is a series of methods that uses the planets, other objects, and measurements of the celestial sphere to make either make predictions or symbolize people, events, and situations. All such methods are invented at one time or another. I mean that broadly without quibbling about the semantics of 'invention' versus 'tradition' or 'evolution' because every aspect of tradition has been thought up by someone. Every measure that is granted significance was deemed significant by someone's criteria of establishing meaning.

"And if not, then you must be assuming that some are indeed fictious (such as horary, as stated above), for surely something supposedly as real as astrology cannot be "invented", but instead it must be discovered." Surely, not. I'm not saying some types or methods are fictitious and others real.

"And what about the constellation Ophiuchus? Ophiuchus is contained within the ecliptic and yet it is not part of the Zodiac. Why did astrologers decide to leave it out?" It wasn't deemed significant in the tradition, so no astrological significance was assigned to it. No one in ancient Greece or Late Babylon considered it a part of the zodiac, so it was left out of the tradition. It's hard to shake the cultural and traditional significance of 12 and 7.

"Does a constellation only affect you if the astrologers are aware of it?" A question best left to someone else. Even so, most astrologers don't think constellations affect anyone, most are unconcerned for constellations but are more interested in the measures based not on constellations but on Ptolemy's division of ecliptic starting with the eastern tropic.

"Another reason why astrology has no basis is because the Zodiac is only accurate to when astrology was invented..." Not quite. Astrology was practiced long before the tropical zodiac became the basis for the category of signs. The tropic zod is another contingency along the way of astrology's history.

" (ex: If you were born on April 15th, say, then astrologically, you would be Aries. But astronomically, you would be Pisces. Which is it? Are you really an Aries, or a Pisces? " In Indian astrology, you would still be a Pisces. The likely reason for this is that the Greek immigrants in Indian were not aware of Ptolemy or importing material prior to Ptolemy. By the time they had Ptolemy's redefinition of the zodiac, the sidereal zodiac stuck.

On definition of planets, "Will this affect astrology? If not, why not?" Someone added links to articles on the redefinition sight to astrologers' opinions (mainly that it will not affect astrology). I think it will change how some astrologers interpret. On the speculation that Ceres will become a planet, I'm already seeing astrologers grant meaning to it. Some astrologers (such as Phil Sedgwick in western U.S) have already been astrologically interpreting every astronomical discovery (Sedna, black holes, galaxies, etc). This is quite the pluralistic postmodern approach. Some astrologers will only use the traditional 7 planets (including sun and moon) because that's the system they choose. Anything else? Zeusnoos 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have astro texts, from the 1970s, on the Asteroids, including Ceres. So, what's with: "On the speculation that Ceres will become a planet, I'm already seeing astrologers grant meaning to it?" New to the block? Andrew Homer 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy has a lot of points, but he is also too stubborn to realize the only proof you need is look around you. Astrology is proven true to me everyday...now I'm not saying astrology is perfect....but all I know is that YES, when and where you are born directly effects your personally from birth to death. This truth is undeniable. (unsigned - [[User:TheJesterRace07])

If it were a simple matter of stubbornness, I would be easy to refute- there would be little to question, right? Just observe. No, these answers are from far too much experience with such proof. Zeusnoos 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are astrologers going to do when they find out that Pluto is not a planet?

I don't think Pluto's classification has much influence on how it is used in astrology, and it's notable that astrologers use the Sun and Moon, though these are not technically considered planets by today's definition. Sam 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Astrology and the liberal arts

Is there a source for the claim of a correspondence between the liberal arts and the planets? This passage was first inserted in an anonymous edit in January 2005, and has remained substantially the same since then. The only citation that was added in support of it was deceptive, pointing to a Wikipedia mirror rather than a confirming scholarly source. In my opinion, the passage needs to be reworded, at a minimum, so that the mention of planets doesn't precede the mention of the liberal arts -- such a correspondence, if it was historically claimed, would have been more like a clever trope to symbolically arrange the liberal arts (along the lines of a Porphyrian "tree of knowledge") than an idea created concomitantly with the evolution of the liberal arts. And it would be great to have an actual citation in support of the claim. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cumbersome see also section

I agree that this is a bit much, and some related topics are too specific or not closely tied. Technical astrology terms (for the purpose of learning how to practice astrology should be put in their own hub, or only included if they are mentioned in the main article. My suggestions for paring:

Accidental dignity -no Age of Aquarius - no Ascending planet - maybe Chaldea - no Domicile - no Gnostic circle - no House (astrology) - maybe Imum Coeli (IC) - maybe List of cycles - no List of magical terms and traditions - no Lunation - no Lunar node - no Lunar phase - no Medium Coeli/Midheaven (MC) - maybe Monen - no Predictions for the forthcoming year - ?? Ray of Creation - no Saturn Return - maybe Solar deity - no Sporalogy - no The Combination of Stellar Influences - no Twelve Holy Days - no

Zeusnoos 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a quagmire, isn't it? If you remove something which is actualy important someone will probably put it back, so jump in is my advice. Jefffire 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite for failing to demonstrate

The lead section claims "as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in numerous controlled studies." and uses this as its reference . But when I followed that link I found some decent discussion of how common belief in astrology is, and the accusation that it is a pseudoscience, but no evidence of Astrology having "repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies." Maybe it was there and I didn't see it, or maybe the anti-astrology folks need a different reference, or maybe this claim is too strong (indeed I can see how a particular Astrological theory might fail to demonstrate its effectiveness in a controlled study, but given the broad definitions used by this cite and the NSF webcite (Which defines it as "that the position of the stars and planets can effect people's lives," eesh), seasonal affective disorder, or any other form of seasonality would be an empirically verifiable astrological phenomena according to these kinds of broad definitions. I'm gonna ax this claim in a couple days unless, someone can show me how this citation backs it up. Bmorton3 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the NSF link. Must have been misplaced. How about [1] (esp the last few paras), and [2] or [3] and to back the claim? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnote ten right before it does the trick, so I already moved it, add either of the ones you mentioned if you want. Bmorton3 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Espoo was right, "effective" isn't really the right word for this line, look at the studies that these two sources claim astrology has failed, matching birth charts to owners, compatibility distribution curves and divorces, sun sign and job correlations, stuff like that. How is "repeatedly failed empirical tests in controlled studies"? Notice that Smit even argues at the end that there is an important sense in which Astrology is "effective" despite its failure at the empirical tests. Also "repeatedly" and "numerous" seems redundant and prejudicial. Bmorton3 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you take an interest in this topic - some of the edits can benefit from attention by logicians. While Vorpal is right to revert, you are correct about effectiveness. Effectiveness is ambiguous and can be measured in different ways, such as a client's satisfaction with astrological counseling or belief that astrology helped them know their situation. Espoo's edit was "as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its claimed ability to predict future events (incl. past events on the basis of earlier ones) in numerous controlled studies." This is an improvement because what was tested was claims of prediction (including knowledge of past events). This is awkward to define without saying 'to predict past, present and future', so your suggestion is good. The second edit made by Espoo is also problematic because the site sourced doesn't say anything about exposing astrology as 'fraud' (which is intentional deceit) or distinguishing between common sense and critical thinking. This strikes as an original research claim. Zeusnoos 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't criticizing Vorpal, I was trying to move the discussion to the talk page because of the inherent controversialness of the topic. I think "failed to demostrate its claimed ability to predict future events (etc)" isn't correct either, for those two citations, although there might be others down at the bottom of the article that would support that claim. Like I said those studies do things like show that putatively trained astrologers cannot match people to their birth charts as well as chance, which isn't an effectiveness issue, or a prediction issue, but is a experiment that turned out in ways that cast doubt on Astrology. I think "repeatedly failed empirical tests in controlled studies" is accurate to what those two citations show, and vague enough for the lead section, so you can keep the detailed stuff in the last section of the article. I guess I do still have a vague interest in this topic, although I haven't done much conventional astrology for years, I didn't even draw a chart for my last neice. I'll change the lead in a day or two if no one has a good counter-suggestion or argument. Bmorton3 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The following statement

is in the intro: "Critics, including the scientific community, generally consider astrology to be a pseudoscience[9] or superstition,[10] as it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in numerous controlled studies." Shouldn't this statement be in a criticisms section, and not in the intro as it is not a crucial (or any) part of the topic of astrology? Whiskey Rebellion 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not in an Astrologers job description to explain WHY Astrology works - just to explain HOW it works. I use to sell electronic appliances without getting a degree in electrical engineering. Apparently my earlier explaination of the difference between "psuedoscience" and "prescience" went over your head. Just as soon as superior research tools are invented to measure the mechanics explaining HOW Astrology works, then you so-called academics can have something to chew on. Inferior research tools, inferior objective observations. Keep trying to impress your fellow debunkers how shrewd you are. Don't let us legit Astrologers get in the way of your erroneous psuedo-conclusions. Andrew Homer 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that it's in the intro, becuase I think it's crucial while defining the subject, especially since astrology is defined as a science by some astrologers. We need to express the majority (scientific) as the majority view, as per WP:NPOV. For example, take a look at the intelligent design article. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vorpal Blade, thanks for your comments and for pointing me to the intelligent design article. I'll check it out now. Whiskey Rebellion 01:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just went over the intro and a bit of the intelligent design article and while I understand what you are saying concerning whether or not it is pseudoscience, I can't say I agree that this has anything to do with WP:NPOV. These are articles about Astrology and Intelligent Design. All they really need to do is discuss these topics. Whether most people think they are real or pseudoscience shouldn't have such a huge input into the article itself. I could see a section in the article refuting them or something like that, though. I could compare it to an article on cookies made with brocolli chips. This idea would be repugnant to most people. But does that make it okay to have a huge portion of the article or an inclusion in the inro concerning the distaste most people have of brocolli chip cookies?

To the editors here who believe in astrology: I was not saying astrology is repugnant! I was just making a point with a made-up cookie recipe article. Whiskey Rebellion 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But, what if it's not a brocolli chip cookie? That's the issue here. Some people, including some astrologers consider astrology as a science, while the majority of the scientific community considers it as a pseudoscience and superstition. The relevant sections of official policy which covers this are WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. It says

the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that the scientific view is the majority view? I've seen surveys that around 25% of the US believes in Astrology, but what proportion of the other 75% disbelieve in it and what proportion are neutral or undecided? What percentage of non-astrology believers believe that it is a psuedo-science or superstition? My guess would be that most people don't care, or don't know quite what a "pseudo-science" is and that the view that astrology is correct, and the view that it is a pseudo-science are BOTH minority views, rather than the scientific view being a majority view, but I could be wrong, anyone got evidence? Our task as I understand it is to represent the majority view as the majority view, and the minority view as the minority view But that doesn't itself establish that the scientific view is the majority view, although I've seen good evidence that the astrological view is the minority view (in the US, Brazil might be a different story ..., also there is a big generational gap, people under 35 are like 45% believers in Astrology last I saw.) Bmorton3 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. I once hunted down 12 sources in half and hour - they were deleted promptly and an astrology-believing editor told me we would need sources which were surveys concluding "scientists believe astrology is..." instead of just a lot of scientist and their organisations saying "astrology is..." I believe its in the talk history as well as the main page (search my username). Lundse 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I have no doubt that the majority OF SCIENTISTS and their organizations believe that astrology is pseudo-science, or that the majority of Americans (and probably most other countries) disbelieve in astrology. I wondered (not suggesting any editing here, just wondering) whether a majority of Americans or any other country considered Astrology a pseudo-science. My guess is that a majority of Americans have no opinion one way or the other, and that it is only scientists and astrologers that particularly care one way or the other. Bmorton3 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. You should take a look at the survey on "Public Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology" done by the National Science Foundation for 2006. (Here [4]). It says,

Belief in pseudoscience is widespread. For example, at least a quarter of the U.S. population believes in astrology, i.e., that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives. Although two-thirds (66%) of those queried in 2004 said that astrology is "not at all scientific," about one-third considered it at least "sort of scientific" (appendix table 7-14 Excel table.).[30]

Belief in astrology may be more prevalent in Europe. In 2001, 53% of Europeans surveyed thought astrology is "rather scientific" and only a minority (39%) said it is not at all scientific. In the 2005 survey, Europeans were asked whether or not they considered certain subjects to be scientific, using a 5-point scale (with higher values indicating that a subject is more scientific). About 4 out of 10 (41%) of those surveyed gave responses of 4 or 5 for astrology, the same as the score for economics. However, when the survey used the word "horoscopes" instead of astrology, only 13% gave a response of 4 or 5. Disciplines most likely to be considered scientific by Europeans were medicine (89%), physics (83%), biology (75%), mathematics (72%), astronomy (70%), and psychology (53%). History (34%) and homeopathy (33%) were at the bottom of the list (European Commission 2005a). Comparable U.S. data on the various disciplines do not exist.

In the United States, skepticism about astrology is strongly related to level of education: in 2004, 81% of college graduates said that astrology is "not at all scientific," compared with 51% of those with less than a high school education and 62% of those who had completed high school but not college. In Europe, however, respondents with college degrees were just as likely as others to claim that astrology is scientific.

In the United States, belief in astrology is also related to level of income (which, in turn, is related to education). Those in higher income brackets were less likely than others to say that astrology is either very or sort of scientific.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this absolutely belongs in the intro. Not deploying the scientific opinion on the subject is to allow astrology to define itself without qualification. The quote from NPOV Vorpal deploys is the primary line of policy dealing with this. It's critical people know, in case they might suspect otherwise, that there is no scientific for grounding its claims. Marskell 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this belongs in the intro. We have to describe what something is, even if that means it has to be a description of a majority view against a minority one. Astrology's status qua science is extremely important for the astrology article, especially since so many astrologers claim it is a science, refuse to test it, provide sources for their "proofs", etc. Lundse 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such link. I was just on that page. Here is a direct quote from it which I find kind of scary:

I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

Evil? My God. This can't be serious. This is no policy, either. It's just someone's point of view. It's an article on astrology. Leave it alone! Whiskey Rebellion 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread the page. Here's a direct link to the relevant policy. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 07:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the FAQs were moved a while back. It is a long standing sentence. Marskell 08:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Vorpal you added the superstition category back and said see talk page for consensus. Is there a consensus that Astrology is a superstition? Do category markers require majority view, or one citation or what? We have citations of people in print claiming that Astrology is a superstition and that it isn't on the page. Which do we use to decide the appropriateness of a category? Bmorton3 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, scroll up a bit on this talk page for the previous discussion. Although I understand what Zeus is saying about astrology being a faulty knowledge system, rather that a superstition, I think that astrology is believed by a significant number of people to be a called a superstition because of it's irrational (wrt to science) belief that future events are somehow influenced by planets. I do believe we have citations in the article stating this. So, I think we should include this category. In fact, we could also edit to fit the superstition page as suggested, rather than remove the cat.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the policies on category inclusion in disputed cases? For other disputes we flag the majority view as majority with appropriate cites, and the significant minority views as minorities with appropriate cites. Is the standard for cat inclusion any cite at all? majority view? absence of significant controversy? Wikipedia: Category says nothing about controversies. Bmorton3 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the scientific POV is majority POV or whether this matters, I think the sentence about those who think astrology is pseudoscience belongs in the introductory paragraph where the difficulty of defining astrology is presented. It is an important position that has considerable influence on how astrology is presented in educational circuits. On the issue of superstition, as I said before, superstition is poorly defined in its wp article, and astrology as a whole does not fit the common use of that word, which is either a ritualistic action resulting in, or a belief that an occurrence symbolizes, good or bad luck. Astrology has a little bit to say about chance/fortune/luck but not much. Astrologers or believers in astrology may or may not treat astrological symbolism superstitiously, but it is not an inherent and defining characteristic of astrology. Zeusnoos 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

oh keep the pseudo-science claims in the lead (they are documented). Also the lead doesn't claim that astrology IS a superstition, only that it's critics CLAIM it is, which if fair, and probably central to understanding Astrologies' overall role in our culture. My worry is whether we should categorize Astrology as superstition down at the botton in the cats, for the kinds of reasons Zeusnoos mentions. Bmorton3 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I went through the last two archives, and I found a lot of less than civil bickering, for which all present have my sympathies, and a certain degree of consensus on issues concerning claims about pseudo-science and proto-science terms, claims, citations, categories etc. I saw no evidence of a consensus concerning "superstition," and this page sure seems to be plenty of counter-evidence that there is not a consensus on this topic one way or the other as to whether the superstition category is appropriate to apply to astrology. If there was once a consensus on this and I missed it please point it out. Further a lot of the arguments concerning the pseudo-science issue do not seem to translate well to me to the superstition issue. For example, WP has a lot of policies in the definition of NPOV about how NPOV and SPOV are supposed to relate and a whole paragraph on pseudo-science in particular, but no corresponding policies on superstition. (unless you count the avoid religious bias clause). But just because something isn't science or even is pseudo-science doesn't make it a superstition. Likewise there was much discussion on "onus" and "reverse onus" (basically burden of proof issues) and while that line of reasoning may work for the pseudo-science issue because of WP's policies, I can't see how it works for the superstition issue. Nor is it clear that scientists per se are the relevant experts to decide what is or isn't a superstition, that looks like the job of social scientists, probably folklorists or scholars of magic or religion. The superstition page is lacking in in-line citation, and lists the folklorist defintion of superstition at the bottom, while having one odd unreferenced definition as the lead. But astrology even if false, doesn't fit either of these definitions very well. Certainly the astronomer we cite is evidence that astrologies' critics consider it a superstition, (actually hmm Fraknoi cites a number of troubling studies and calls it fantasy and pseudo-science, but I don't see him using the word superstition), but not a very good source for claiming that it really is a superstition, (as opposed to some other kind of astronomically inappropriate belief). Even if Astrology were an irrational belief that the future could be predicted, it wouldn't be an irrational belief that the future could be influenced by specific behaviours. I just don't see a consensus here on superstition. Part of respecting consensus is admitting when there isn't one. Bmorton3 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitionism is tricky, since it changes depending on your source. This subject is cited as a superstition by a number of good sources, which is the most important thing. It might be important, so I'll mention now that categorisation only has guidelines, not policy. Jefffire 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm, the categorization guidelines I could find didn't talk about disputes at all which complicates things. Do you have some good sources on "astrology as superstition"? Our page has a number of sources on "astrology as empirically contra-indicated", but I don't have any good "astrology as superstition" sources, and I haven't seen any on the page yet. Bmorton3 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like they became casalties in the great edit war. I'll have a look back in the history. Jefffire 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked a couple of books on superstition, both included it but also had disclaimers about including superstitions, folk beliefs, magical beliefs, ritual beliefs and all kinds of other stuff on the borderlines of superstition, besides superstition proper, grrr. Can any folklorists help us? (and both refused to define superstition) Bmorton3 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While this is not usually the best way to check for common opinion on definitions, I googled superstition. Throwing out wikipedia and infidels.org, and a music studio, the first three sites all confirm the definition I offered above. It takes a giant leap of imagination (or agnoia) to fit astrology in with superstition, which is used interchangeably with 'urban legend' and 'old wives tales'. See http://www.oldsuperstitions.com/ , http://www.corsinet.com/trivia/scary.html , and http://www.urbanlegendsonline.com/ Most superstitions are isolated occurrences or symbols, not all-encompassing systems of symbols. Zeusnoos 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...not always golden

I rewrote the definition in the introduction that was significantly edited by Silence without discussion here. I removed quasi-mystical because there is nothing mystical (not sure what quasi-m is) about the common practice of astrology - there is no Plotinian flight to the One nor a union with an ineffable divine presence nor a negative theology. Astrology doesn't just use bodies (planets and stars) but measures of the celestial sphere - imum coeli, etc. It claims correspondence with earthly and human affairs since some mundane astrology covers attempts at earthquake prediction and weather phenomena. Zeusnoos 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

More restrictedly, LOTS of Astrology isn't mystical. Union with the ineffable divine presence, Plotinian flight and negative theology DO all occur in some strands, these are all present in the Gnostic traditions of ascent through the heavenly spheres for example, or in the traditions of Haran. These are not the common kinds of astrology practiced today, but they do exist. Bmorton3 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call gnosticism (any branch of it in antiquity) a type of astrology or even a use of astrology. In fact, there are direct statements against astrology in gnosticism since since the planets were considered evil archons with the intention of keeping the soul enslaved to a fatalistic cosmos. And astrological symbolism is used in theurgy, but Iamblichus had to alter the meaning of astrology, distinguish his use of correspondences from apotelesmatics. His use of it is not incomparable to Hermetic use of astrological meanings of the planets (as qualities that the soul sheds when ascending). Again, not astrology itself as it was taught and practices at the time but incorporation of its symbols. Two years ago I attended a lecture in a seminar series that was to center around astrology in antiquity. The talk was about examples of Hellenistic Jewish reverence for the planets and stars. Nowhere in the entire lecture was there anything about astrology - this loose use of the term for anything that is not astronomy and involves the planets or stars is troublesome. It was nearly universal (with a few exceptions such as Anaxagoras) that the planets were living beings or gods. This does not make astrology. I've written about this sort of stuff somewhere.... Zeusnoos 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See "On the Doctrine of the Eigth and Ninth" or "Zostrianos" in Nag Hammadi, or Zosimos' "On the Letter Omega" or the old apolytrosis texts, or for that matter the modern Ecclessia Gnostica stuff. You and I disagree about the use of astrology in Gnosticism. It is true that ancient Gnostics disagreed with each other, and much of the function of the study of Astrology was to escape the influence of the planetary rulers (which some thought were evil, and others thought were merely to be transcended eventually), but trying to escape the rule of the planetary rulers IS a form of use of astrology! (And a fairly mystical one) (and you've got to beleive in the planetary rulers to want to escape them, and studying their ways is a natural strategy to take). Perhaps you mean that Gnostic and Harranian Astrology resembles Samaratian (and thus Babylonian) Astrology more than Horoscopic Astrology, which is fair. It is unfair to limit astrology to horoscopic astrology. We know from Zosimos that Maria the Jewess at least used astrology to time the use of her furnaces in alchemy, which is a Hellenistic Jewish use of astrology that seems to fit the definitions. When Dante ascends through the heavens in an exstatic state, and studies them and describes them and draws spiritual conclusions from what he encounters there which are to be used in life later, does that seem like Astrology to you? It surely isn't Horoscopy, but it looks like Astrology to me. Bmorton3 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I've read these works (except for modern gnostica), and to be fair, yes they would have had to know the planetary ruler to escape it, and knowing it was half the battle and a difficult exercise (De mysterii, 8.1-3). But they weren't going around practicing astrology like Valens, Hephaistio, Manetho (not the historian) to predict things, elect times, or know fate. I'm not limiting astrology to horoscopic, (in fact that reminds me I wanted to put katarche back in the See also). I think a limit should be drawn, however - otherwise everything dealing with celestial beings or regions gets labeled astrology. As far as Dante and the heavens, this is a part of the Hermetic tradition, and rooted in Plato's Timaeus where the planets (as it was interpreted by later Platonists) help the demiurge by fashioning bodies and given characteristics to souls. I would prefer to say that Hermeticism (of this sort, not referring to Fowden's early 'technical Hermetica' or the Hellenistic texts attributed to the Hermetic line) uses some astrological symbolism without being astrology proper. Back to practicality, I think we were talking about mystical. Mystical means some sort of direct unmediated contact, though the editor who put this in may have meant the vernacular 'mystifying'. Does this strike you as a proper description of astrology or one prominent enough to be in the opening description? Zeusnoos 21:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think mystical or any of its roots belongs in the opening, I agree with you there. How to define mysticism is another mess, but the mystical can certainly be mediated contact as well as unmediated. I suspect that we are not disagreeing on our interpretations of the ancients, or on the best wording of the opening section, but on the definition of astrology. I would be inclined to say that one common USE of astrology is to predict things, elect times, or know fate, (and this is certainly the most common use today) but that this is not the limit or definition of astrology. Everything dealing with the formal study of celestial beings or regions, except perhaps modern astronomy, seems like a pretty good definition of astrology to me (and I'd be tempted to say that Astronomy is just a modern sub-branch Astrology, but hey I know I'm not in the consensus there). Maybe what you are talking about should be called "divinatory astrology" since it is broader than horoscopy, but still includes only the divinatory uses of astrology. I suppose we could invent a new word for my broad sense "caelology" and then reserve the term astrology for divinatory uses of Caelology, but that is misdescribing the tradition. I think we're just disagreeing about where the bounds between "astrological" and "astrology proper" are. Can either of us find evidence for how broadly or narrowly the word was defined or used anciently or medievally? Bmorton3 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with your suggestion of coining a broader category for meaning from the heavens. As a grecophile, I would have preferred ouranology, but by googling I see this was already coined since it is used in conference papers for the Society of Biblical Literature - and possibly for just such a meaning. Something worth looking into at any rate. As far as evidence for the terminology, there were a number of words for astrology and astrologers. In Greek and Latin, the number of instances and the contexts can be found through searching the PHI and TLG databases. I find it more useful to go by the terms that astrologers themselves use rather than the term given to them by skeptics and non-astrologers (when they don't match). Sextus E uses 'astrologoi' for astrologers and 'astrologia' for astrology in general, but he brings together a number of terms and makes some distinctions - that he introduces his Pros astrologous in this way indicates to me that by 2nd Century there still was not popular consensus on what astrology and astrologers are called. He mentions mathematikoi, genethlialogia and apotelesmata, and is quite familiar with the regular astrological terminology. Zeusnoos 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't prefer the terms astrologers used over the ones of skeptics when trying to determine who does and doesn't count as an astrologer without begging the question. I'd just assert that Sextus Empiricus is himself an astrologer (albeit perhaps a non-Dogmatic one) because he is inquiring into the issues investigated also by other astrologers. I'll look again at SE and Zosimos at some point. But your intuition really is that only divinatory astrology counts as astrology, and any other goals for studying celestial beings must be some other discipline rather than some other use of the discipline of astrology? Bmorton3 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By this definition, because I know about astrology, and perhaps I have written about it too, that I'm an astrologer, although I do not practice it. Maybe I'm an astrologerologer or a metastrologer because I study the study of astrology. My intuition on this is that an astrologer is someone who practices or teaches astrology with the intention to convey its 'truth'. Does every person who has studied astrology become an astrologer? Sure there may be a few grey cases, but SE an astrologer? He's one of the deadliest foes to astrology of his time, although not typically original in his arguments. Zeusnoos 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are disputing about the nature of skepticism. Is a researcher on the topic of medical treatments who argues that a certain medical treatment doesn't work a medical researcher because of the topic of investigation, or an anti-medical researcher because of opposing the opinions of other medical researchers or both? Usually we say they are a medical researcher opposing a particular medical theory. What about physics? Is an anti-physicist a physicist who opposes a particular physical theory? What about ethics? Philosophy? Literature? other fields? My intuition is that quite generally we admit such people to the revelent terms but portray them as opposing certain theories. SE is an astrologer who opposed some astrological theories (by compiling the thought of others mostly), he is both an astrologer and a deadly foe of some astrological theories, just as most scholars are both scholars of a field and deadly foes of theories within those fields with which they dispute. Certainly Newton was both a physicist and a deadly foe of some physics theories. Also there are certainly astrologers who practice astrology in the sense of giving advise based on charts while also stopping short of attempting to convey its 'truth' either for legal protection reasons, or genuine skepticism. Back when I drew charts for people, I certainly expressed skepticism of the validity of the theories employed rather than assuring of their truths. But certainly, I'd concede that skeptics are an odd border-case rather than the normal cases. Bmorton3 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, one more can of worms to open. What astrological theory did SE accept that makes him an astrologer? A medical researcher is not defined by whether or not they accept That you calculated charts doesn't necessarily make you an astrologer, although someone from the outside might not know the difference. Zeusnoos 16:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive citation?

The introductory paragraph is rife with superscript citations. It's distracting and disrupts the reading of the article. Sam 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It can't be helped. Since a lot of stuff is very controversial, we need the citations to verify Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly every other word can't be controversial? :P I'm not saying all of the citations should be removed, just that there hardly needs to be two after almost every word in a sentence. It's downright irritating. Perhaps they can be cited in a different fashion. Sam 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I realize that they are necessary, but would it be possible to trim reduntant ones down and pick the absolute best representation of the topic being cited? In some cases, there are up to three just by one word followed by more in the same sentence which is really disruptive to text flow.
For example, in "As a descriptive language for the mind", three are given to uphold one fact about Geoffrey Chaucer when all that is needed is one source backing up that he writes using astrological symbolism or that an understanding of astrological symbolism is needed to fully understand his writings. Cleaning citations up would also help shorten the length of "Notes and references", a mammoth section averting the casual reader from the resources on the bottom. Sam 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are similar thoughts expressed on the peer review page. Sam 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts at all? I would be bold and trim some of them but I don't want to do so when no one has expressed any supporting opinion. Sam 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ritual Instrumental Activism

I knew someone had to have come up with a name for agency superstition:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199603)47%3A1%3C151%3AHATPOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

Zeusnoos 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Books Added on Sept 5th, 2006

I did my best to expand the pathetically small 'Further reading' section; I might add more later, but for now this seems like a decent list when compared to what it was a few hours ago. I made sure that all of the books were written by highly respected authors and published by respectable presses, institutions, and/or universities (i.e. people and places that practice/study SERIOUS astrology and engage in SERIOUS research regarding the subject). There are no "pop-astrology" or "Sun-sign astrology" books to be found on the list. I'd like to add more (reputable and sourced) books that deal with non-Western astrology or other branches/areas of the vast discipline, including Vedic, Cosmobiology/Uranian/Hamburg School, Jewish astrology, Greco-Roman, Babylonian, Chinese/Asian, etc. We also need to get together a good list of books that deal explicitly with the history of astrology as this is VERY important (I noticed MANY whilst browsing Amazon.com, but I'm not sure which are 'the best' so I hesitated to put them in the list). Again though, if we wish to expand this list further we need to MAKE FULLY SURE that the books are from reputable, reliable, and respected authors, institutions, colleges/universities, and/or organizations. --Pseudothyrum 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While we're trying to cut down the volume of this article, I agree that a few more books were needed, but not many. All are ok references -Berlinski is a bit journalistically fluffy but he manages to pull together a popular account (with considerable speculation) by consulting the right sources. Since this is not primarily an article on the history of astrology, you may want to add the sources you have in mind (including the primary sources such as Ptolemy and Kepler) to the history of astrology page instead. The best works on this subject are unfortunately not in English. Zeusnoos 13:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Effect size and similar biased claims

Removed effect size argument because of strongly biased sources. Effect size should be calculated for the best and most studied evidence available, which is Gauquelin's "Mars effect" and Ertel's "eminence effect". Ertel's citation frequency analysis, which remains effectively unchallenged, found a clear linear relationship between Mars placement and eminence in 100% of the samples in all the Mars-athlete studies, including not only all Mars data collected by Gauquelin (n=4384), but all the Mars data collected and tested by astrology critics (n=1664). The combined total represents a large sample. Eminence increases in proportion to Mars in the predicted zones. Citation sources on effect size that ignore very strong effects based on large samples but report only negligible effects based on very small sample sizes should not be documented in Wikipedia as if they are neutral. Piper Almanac 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Citation sources on effect size that ignore very strong effects based on large samples but report only negligible effects based on very small sample sizes should not be documented in Wikipedia as if they are neutral." That is true of course, and it would be very unscientific. Can you back that statement up? Harald88 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Ertel did not publish in a reliable souce, and Gauquelin's work has holes the size of Mars in it. Jefffire 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you back that statement up? Making claims as matter-of-fact that actually are part of a significant dispute would be an NPOV violation. Harald88 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does a good enough job of that aleady, in the appropriate sections. Talk pages don't need to conform to NPOV policy. Jefffire 08:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, see citation 49 in the article, also 47 and 48. A lot of researchers have put their fingers in the Mars effect goo and since Ertel's eminence effect analysis, have not been able to wash it off. It's a powerful finding. Piper Almanac 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Err.. No. Ertel's work has no credibility whatsoever in the mainstream scientific community. Also, the Mars effect is disputed and there are accusations of selection bias in Gauquelin's work. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 02:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you said "Citation sources on effect size that ignore very strong effects based on large samples but report only negligible effects based on very small sample sizes".

This is absolutely not true. You've already brought up this point before, which was addressed. Check the archives.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed unscientific CFEPP study (Benski, et al. "Mars Effect": A French Test of Over 1000 Sports Champions, 1996). This study fails to subject its data to "eminence effect" analysis, which had long been hypothesised by Gauquelin and was substantiated by Professor Ertel, who published in 1988, eight years prior to the CFEPP study ("Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-Varies With Eminence," 1988). Gauquelin himself also mentions this study in his later published work ("Is there Really a Mars Effect," 1988). In scientific method, all hypotheses that could impact results must be carefully considered. The CFEPP study ignored an analysis that was reputed to be the strongest demonstration of positive findings in such a study. This is unscientific. Piper Almanac 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to remove everything like that, then virtually the entirity of all the astrology references get removed. Ertel never published in a reliable science journal, neither have any of the studies mentioned in the procedeing paragraph. You are not the arbiter of what is and is not scientific, and a good thing too given the blatent double standards shown here. Jefffire 09:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. In this case Ertel raised the hurdle and Gauquelin gave it the last word in his final summation of the Mars effect. To him it was the clincher. If anyone is going to test the Mars effect from that point onward, they need to go over the hurdle, not under it, as the CFEPP study did, otherwise it's a DNF. Piper Almanac 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sort of missing the point that Ertel's study wasn't printed in a mainstream science journal there... Jefffire 12:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a mainsteam scientific journal that publishes such studies? Harald88 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what we call your problem, not mine. Jefffire 07:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather, it's definitely your problem if it was indeed your argument that only studies on Astrology - which is generally regarded as a rather unscientific subject - can be quoted that are published in scientific journals. Only if such studies exist can such an argument hold, see WP:V. Harald88 19:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrology isn't thought of as a mainstream science by the scientific community. It's thought of as a pseudoscience. Since the standards of mainstream scientific journals are high, few studies on astrology pass the required criteria to get published. Actually, there was one study on astrology published in Nature. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be probably useful to cite that one. If you can dig that one up ( a reference to it), that would be great.

Thanks, Harald88 19:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrology research is not mainstream science. If we are going to accept publishing a topic on astrology and science at all, which is not mainstream science, then we need to follow the chronology of events within the small scientific community that was involved and accept the publications they used among themselves, much of which is now available on the Internet, as can be amply seen by the citations in use. In an area as limited as this is, mainstream science publications are irrelevant. To demand otherwise is an injustice to science. Piper Almanac 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because the credibility of the article will suffer heavily as a result and it would violate WP:NPOV. The research has no credibilty within the majority of the scientific community, and that's what the article should say if it has to conform with WP:NPOV Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Vorpal. Wikipedia doesn't care about "injustice to science". Wikipedia is built on acepting authority, whether rightly or wrongly. Jefffire 07:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One more ditto. Piper Almanac wants to remove a reference (to CFEPP) because he thinks he found a mistake in it. By that reasoning, we should remove all references to Gauquelin and Ertel because other people found mistakes in those. Double standard is not one of WP's guidelines. So, removing the reference is not an option. --Hob Gadling 08:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has found mistakes in Ertel's work. This has made it the ultimate authority since 1988. The credibility of the article IS suffering now because of its violation of WP:NPOV.Piper Almanac 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PLenty of people have found mistakes in Ertel's work. Zelin showed that the original figures were biased, and Ertel reused many of them making the same mistakes again. This is why Ertel never had the courage to submit to a mainstream journal, because his work was flawed. Instead he published in a non-notable comedy piece, and cried "bias!" as to why he didn't attempt better. Jefffire 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source for this? To my knowledge, Zelin tried to show selection bias in Gauquelin's data, not data Ertel used. Please review your sources. Ertel's analysis accepts all Mars-athlete data indiscriminately, even the most inferior athletes in any quantity, the more data the better. That is the beauty of it. The Mars association co-varies with eminence. I do not know if Ertel submitted to any mainstream journal, but that is irrelevant because the study and the publication that published it is well known among the researchers. Piper Almanac 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making the mistake of accepting all of Ertel's work and his supporters at face value. If it were that good, he should have published in a serious journal. Ertel didn't publish in a reliable source, so by Wikipedia standards, that means his "findings" are no better than opinion. End of story as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Until he publishes in a mainstream journal, your position is untenable under current policy. Jefffire 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Ertel's work should be taken at face value at this time because no one has been able to find anything wrong with it for 18 years and the simple analytic technique he used has caused considerable embarassment to studies done afterward because it shows their flaws. The journal in which Ertel published, JSE, does not cater to mainstream or popular tastes in science, but it is certainly a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal. As I pointed out earlier, astrology research is not mainstream, so if Wikipedia is going to have this article at all, it needs to use the publications that this particular scientific community uses among themselves. Both JSE and Correlation publish astrology articles that are both pro and con. The skeptic sources used in this article are mainly books, web pages, and non-peer-reviewed journals. If there is any flexibility here at all, it needs to bend both ways. The skeptics have been getting off way to easy with their sources. Piper Almanac 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be in opposition to Wikipedia policies. All other points are moot. Jefffire 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

category protoscence is inappropriate

Astrology is more like a Superseded scientific theory:

"A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream science; or a falsifiable theory which has been shown to be false. This label does not cover theories that are yet to gain wide support in the scientific community (protoscience or fringe science)."

I've added this article to the category obsolete scientific theories. If it is argued that astrology was once a protoscience then it should be added to a category of "obsolete protoscientic theories" or somehting simlar, but certainly not protoscience. Count Iblis 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is both as superceded scientific theory and a proto-science. Look at proto-science, Kuhn especially means this term to apply to historical fields that were once appropriate science. Every superceded scientific theory was at one point a proto-science by definition, near as I can tell. In fact astrology is one of the examples used on the proto-science page. There there are certainly some disputes on that talk page. But why not leave both the superceded cat, and the proto-science cat? Surely even Astrology's detractors are willing to admit that it was protoscience during some of the periods discussed on this page. I don't like fighting about cats, but c'mon. Further, there are clearly still astrologers trying to engage in scientific validation of parts of astrological theory, despite the consensus of the scientific community. That looks like a classic example of something being BOTH a superceded theory and a proto-science theory.Bmorton3 20:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the categories "obsolete scientific theory" "pseudo-science" and "protoscience" are ALL inappropriate! The guidelines for categorization are quite different than I thought they were. From Wikipedia: Category "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Whatever else can be said about the extent to which Astrology is properly described as "pseudo-science" "proto-science" or "superceded science" none of these terms is "self-evident and uncontroversial." I had thought the guideline was basically "add an article to any vaguely plausible category." But if the guideline is "do not put the article in the category unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial" then none of these categories can be sustained. I think we should keep discussions of accusations of psuedo-science, proto-science or supercession on the page (with appropriate citations), but that none of these should be categories. Anyone want to argue that these are "self-evident and uncontroversial?" Bmorton3 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That guideline is superseded by the policy that states articles ought "to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" (WP:NPOV/FAQ). It is self-evident that astrologers would dispute the pseudo-science label but it is also self-evident that scientists call astrology such. We aren't mediating the dispute; we're reporting how it is defined. Marskell 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No the guideline isn't superceded by the policy. The policy says "to represent the majority view as the majority view" but the guideline says that it takes more than a majority view to put something in a category, it takes being "self-evident and uncontroversial." I concede that the scientific view should be considered the majority view here. I do not concede that it is such a strong super-majority as to be "self-evident and uncontroversial." We try hard to present the majority view as majority in the article where we can annotate the disputes appropriately. Since we cannot annotate categories in any way, we have to hold them to a much higher standard. Categories are not mediating a dispute, or reporting how it is defined, those are both done in the article; categories are designed to help users find information in a non-controversial way. There are careful doctrines on NPOV and Pseudoscience in the NPOV policy, but they are not designed to claim that the scientific POV is non-controversial, only that it is to be treated as the majority position. The long-standing compromise argument is a far better point, but that has clearly been re-opened by trying to challenge the proto-science cat. Bmorton3 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First, if they disagree, policies always supercede guidelines. That is a wiki fact.

Second, as has been pointed out on various topics, if "this is controversial" can be used to revoke the pseudoscience cat it would never be employed as partisans of topics will always have a means to declaim it. The guideline you cite essentially becomes suppressive at the point, as it can be used to exclude any category seen as critical of a topic. This is obviously a senseless loophole, and to turn it around it would be just as controversial to me to not categorize this under pseudoscience if the scientific majority terms it such. As suggested above, we need to separate whether it actually is one from whether it is termed one. Marskell 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Policies always supercede guidelines when they disagree. You and I agree on this point. I think this is a case where the policy and the guideline do not disagree. The policy says treat the majority opinion as the majority opinion. The guideline says, it takes far more than a majority opinion to include something in a category. How is that a disagreement? This looks like a case where both apply without any disagreement. If the cat "pseudoscience" can always be opposed by attempting to follow the guidelines, then either "pseudoscience" isn't a very good category, or the guidelines on categories need revision. A category like "Best American Musicians of the 20th century" would be a useless category precisely because nothing would be uncontroversial enough to go in it. My guess is that "pseudoscience" is in the same boat, because it is an inherently controversial categorization. But it is also possible that we should instead rework the categorization guidelines. A third route, what I suspect will be taken, is simply to ignore the guidelines when they are inconvenient for the majority side, perhaps citing policies like WP:IAR. This route is a dangerous precedent for the future when you are not on the majority side. It would be controversial NOT to include it in the category "pseudoscience" you are right, but the guidelines have shown us how to deal with the controversy, DO NOT INCLUDE a page where the inclusion is controversial. Side A says include it, Side B says don't. The guidelines say in the case of a page present the majority position (with citations), significant minority positions (with citations), and move insignificant minority positions off page, in the case of a category, do not include in cases of controversy. This isn't a senseless loophole its a resolution procedure for fights on whether or not to include something in a category, just like the kind of fight we are having here. Bmorton3 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that comparing the categories "Best American Musicians of the 20th century" and "Pseodoscience" is fair. I'd say that what is science and what is pseodoscience is possible to determine much more objectively than who is the best musician. It is quite clear that astrology's modern attempts at being a science puts it into the pseudoscience category. It might be argued that astrology at some point conformed to the criterions of protoscience, but not today. Thus, I agree with Count Iblis, for whatever that is worth. EthicsGradient 15:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Astrology is both a protoscience AND a prescience. Astrology is a protoscience according to no longer valid scientific "laws." Astrology is a prescience according to the latest discovered scientific "laws." Each discovery in physics doesn't weaken Astrologers claims, but rather comes closer to explaining how and why Astrology works. Stay tuned. - Andrew Homer 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of astrological terms

If this topic has already been brought up, forgive me. I did a search of the talk pages and didn't find anything related.

Terms like medium coeli and imum coeli are capitalized sometimes in this and other astrology-related articles. Anyone know if this is the correct usage? I did a search on Google Books [5] and it seems as though some sources capitalize them and some don't. Sam 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

These are Latin terms so should be lower case - although astrologers in their works don't typical make note of it and capitalize them. They are usually just abbreviated MC and IC, and the IC is sometimes mistakenly called the nadir. Zeusnoos 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A general comment on this article and the subject

I am not particularly interested in astrology, but I notice a semantic problem in this article and in the treatment of the subject generally. What seems to be the first barrier in the scientific examination of astrology is the statement that celestial bodies "influence" our lives, personalities, etc.

Would it not be more productive, and more accurate, to instead say that the celestial bodies reflect our lives, personalities, etc.? By way of a simple example, instead of saying that Mercury going retrograde "causes" misfunctions, accidents, or whatever, we would instead say that Mercury going retrograde reflects a time when such events are more likely to occur, and therefore one may predict the likelihood of such events by studying the movements of the celestial bodies in relation to Earth.

Such a simple semantic change may assist in removing one (admittedly not the most important) barrier from the immediate dismissal of astrology by science, and also would be indicative of some of the underlying assumptions of astrology. Though I am not a great student of this subject (I have studied the history of alchemy to a certain extent, and many of the ancient philosophers who have touched on this subject), it appears to me that, as the universe was apparently created of a piece, all parts would likely reflect the whole, and therefore with enough study one might indeed be able to predict possible future events, at least on our level (leaving quantum physics aside). Such study might require an unlimited amount of time and an infinite number of observations, the human mind being what it is (and accumulated knowledge would render this more achievable), but it appears to me at least possible.

I'm sure this is not as coherent as I intended it, but it's an idea I've had for some time now and I thought it might be worth sharing.

Beginner's question

What happens when the end or beginning date of a sign is changed? Like how Gemini's end date used to be June 20th, but was changed to the 21st...does that mean someone whose birthday was June 21st becomes more Gemini-like after it was changed? I know they're still on the cusp, but does that make them a Gemini/Cancer as opposed to a Cancer/Gemini, as it was before it was changed? Or does it only apply to people born on that date after the change?--Tainted Drifter 10:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one is answering, you might try the Wikipedia reference desk. Sam 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sun, Moon, planets, asteroids, comets, nodes, et al cross from one zodiac sign to the next at different dates and different times. Just because our "man"ufactured calendar we use in the modern western world (you'll find many more different calendars mentioned here on Wikipedia) tries to use the Sun's cycle is only an approximate reference. Thank's to leap year the next year a sun crosses the same sign cusp will still be 365.25 days later, but could appear on our calendar as occuring a day earlier. Astrological software is much more useful to answer your question, than just using a mainstream or popular calendar. Andrew Homer 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is a man made cultural system , not a science, and there are different approaches. In Sidereal astrology used in India and by some in the west your sun would be well in the middle of Gemini since in this system it runs June 15 – July 16. Lumos3 12:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, how many decades have you been doing meaningful chart readings for customers? Andrew Homer 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's rather unfair to label my post as "beginner's question" whilst none of you could provide a direct answer to it...--Tainted Drifter 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The date you're referring to is position of the Sun in tropical Gemini. Dates for the tropical zodiac will never change because it is aligned with the seasons. Different sources will have different dates, but it's a minor discrepancy rather than a change; they're never more than a day or two different. If you're unsure about the position of your Sun, you should refer to an ephemeris or have your birth chart calculated. — Sam 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vedic Astrology

There should have been more coverage of Vedic astrology.--Darrendeng 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as well as many others... I have (re)added the {{Globalize}} template to draw attention to this matter. Sfacets 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

site inclusion

Please include www.knowingsouls.com under this site. We have honest and accurate and ethical Astrologers.

I disagree. Currently the focus of the site is psychic tarot readings and a link about astrology states they do not currently employ astrologers.Volpane 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment above, we here at www.theastrologyspot.com have a working relationship with them, first class.

Nature ref

• Shawn Carlson (1985). "A double-blind test of astrology". Nature. 318: 419–425. doi:10.1038/318419a0.