Talk:Astrology/Archive 6

From the village pump

It may interest you to know that someone posted these comments on Astrology on the Village Pump. I am posting here for info (with my reply). If you wish to comment on my reply, fine, but beware I won't respond to or even read your comments unless you leave a note on my talk page (I have no interest in Astrology) Captainj 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to be as accurate as possible, shouldn't we have a scientific point of view, rather than a neutral point of view?

It becomes very difficult to edit articles on pseudoscience, such as astrology, when describing the scientific point of view is treated as a form of bias. For example, there is strong disagreement on mentioning the mainstream scientific view in the introduction to astrology, as it is might be considered as bias. I think implementing a scientific point of view, will go a long way in improving the quality of articles on wikipedia. At the least, we could amend the NPOV, so that more emphasis is provided to the mainstream scientific view, when disputes arise. 59.92.62.97 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But astrology isn't a scientific subject! (I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science). Any scientific view inevitably will criticize it, and be irrelevant. Don't pretend that Astrology even merits scientific arguments - it doesn't (personally I think its a load of rubbish, but that's neither here nor there). But it is notable, and it is respected by a large number of people. I think the current intro is balanced and makes it clear tha Astrology is a system of belief, nor does it make unilateral claims. The section "The objective validity of astrology" also deals with criticisms - I can't see a problem, it is a balanced article which seeks to explain a system of belief that is widely known and very popular (even though it is unscientific). I think a WikiScience wouldn't be a bad idea, but that's a separate issue (WikiScience if it existed wouldn't even have articles like astrology on it). Captainj 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is pesudo science, becuase it claims to apply the positions of celestial bodies in understanding events on Earth. So it's portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work and is unsupported by sufficient scientific research.

In my opinion, the point that it is notable, and is respected by a large number of people, shows the need for a scientific point of view. This is because, there is overwhelming evidenince, via controlled experimental studies, that astrology cannot make consistent accurate prediction. So any such statement, which says astrology fails to make accurate predictions, is essential in an introduction to the subject, as it can be verified by facts. So considering what many people say today, isn't it essential to include the fact that astrology doesn't work in controlled experiments in the introduction, to give a balanced view? siddharth 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere that Astrology claims to be a Science, either explicitly or implicitly it should be countered with scientific method(i.e. does it succeed at tests it could fail at?). I didn't see that in the introduction. The only part I object to is this idead that there is any correlation between the movement in the stars and events on Earth, but then I've seen correlation misused enough in Wikipedia and outside to realise that 99% of people just use it without even understanding what it means. (eg What does a correlation 0.786 mean?) But if I remember right it used the words "supposed correlation" so I guess that's not as bad. Captainj 09:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Science and 'pseudoscience'

Captainj, Lundse, Marskell, Siddharth, anonymous skeptics, and the indefatigable but now MIA Jefffire: Do you have an appreciation for the history and complexity of astrology? Geoffrey Dean, the most respected skeptic authority on research into astrology, has this to say about astrology in his landmark book, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology:

"Astrology has been a respectable subject for millenia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal... Astrology means different things to different people. It is variously regarded as a sacred historic tradition, a secret esoteric doctrine for initiates only, a science ruled by physical laws, a symbolic art/philosophy/religion, or superstitious entertainment. Clearly some areas are not accessible to objective enquiry [...] but none should involve the suspension of critical faculties."

Notice he doesn't use the term pseudoscience. In his extensive (17-page) index, the word pseudoscience is not included. I venture to say he doesn't use this word at all in the book (I haven't checked all 600 pages). Why? Because he has studied astrology and knows better. Using the term pseudoscience with respect to astrology shows that the person hasn't studied astrology hard enough and doesn't have a proper grasp on what astrology is.

Carl Sagan, a defining figure of modern astronomy, said this about the infamous Humanist article: "I find myself unable to endorse the 'Objections to Astrology' statement (September/October, 1975) - not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. [...] Statements contradicting borderline-, folk- or pseudo-science that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more damage than good."

Also notice how careful Sagan is in not saying that astrology is pseudoscience. To my knowledge he hasn't studied astrology extensively, but still his instinct and judgment tells him to tread carefully in unknown territory.

If you actually consider the history of astrology and science, you will quickly see how inappropriate the term pseudoscience is when it comes to astrology. Astrology has traditions going back for thousands of years, and it had been considered as a science for much of that tradition. For most of written history, philosophy stood at the top of the scientific edifice, so astrology, which is also a form of philosophy, was naturally held in high regard.

Sorry, I had to call you on this. It was theology, not philosophy, which was thought to be the higher standard and where other areas got their validation - at least for the whole of the 'middle ages'. Philosophy took over (to some degree, this is debated) a lot later (modern era). And astrolgy is not a form of philosophy, no matter how you bend that term. Philosphy is thinking without dogma (as can best be done in a given time), astrology is dogma which has not been tested - there is nothing philosophic about it. Lundse 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The so called scientific revolution changed all that. A new definition of science emerged, and the new scientific community started to question the validity of every other science that didn't conform to that new definition. Eventually, the term pseudoscience has surfaced and was applied to some of the old sciences, most notably to astrology and alchemy, without a proper understanding of what these old sciences were (just a short diversion: alchemy is not about transforming physical matter into gold). By extension, philosophy could be called a pseudoscience since it does make (implied) predictions. But astrology, with its express predictive nature and religious overtones has become one of the main targets of modern-day science.

Today's science has descended from the old sciences it now calls pseudoscience, so in effect it is trying to distance itself from its roots as much as possible. I'm not here to write a psychological or philosophical discourse about this process, but it would certainly make for an interesting analysis. The bottom line is this: showing lack of respect for your traditions means lack of respect for the world in general and, most of all, lack of self-respect. It is like changing your family name and denying your father and mother. In the case of science, the name didn't change, only its meaning did. And the dethroning of father astrology by son science has occurred much like the dethroning of Uranus by Cronus in Greek mythology (quoted from a reliable, neutral source):

"In Greek mythology, Cronus [Saturn, modern day science] was the leader and the youngest of the first generation of Titans, divine descendants of Gaia, the earth, and Uranus, the sky [astrology]. He overthrew his father, Uranus, and ruled during the mythological Golden Age, until he was overthrown by his own son, Zeus [Jupiter, religion to come, spirituality], and imprisoned in the depths of the underworld, Tartarus [a section of Hades, abode of the dead, of which Hades/Pluto was god.] He was usually depicted with a sickle, which he used to harvest crops and which was also the weapon he used to castrate and depose Uranus."

"While the Greeks considered Cronus a force of chaos along with disorder, believing that the Olympian gods had brought an era of peace and order by seizing power from the crude and malicious Titans, [...] his nature under Roman influence became more innocuous, with his association with the Golden Age eventually causing him to become the god of 'human time', i.e., calendars, seasons, and harvests."

This is a very telling story, but, by definition, it cannot be understood in a strict Saturnine (scientific) manner. Any attempt of explanation to the scientific mind would be futile. I will let you, however, contemplate the possibility that perhaps there is more to astrology than what the skeptic and scientific community tell you.

And just a final note on the de-subjectification aspect of modern science. It is common practice in warfare to dehumanize the enemy because it is much easier to extinguish objects than to murder people. This is achieved by degrading the perceived enemy in any manner suitable in service of the final objective. The militia posing as the defender of 'truth' in opposition to the 'big bad enemy' in political, economic and religious wars is a well-known public relations exercise. In much the same way, modern science is waging a 'holy war' not just against 'pseudoscience' in the 'interest of the public', but also against the entire subjective/irrational world by objectifying living beings and denying the existence of non-matter (despite its physical and astronomical theories telling it that this is a wrong assumption). If you cannot see this analogy working in every facet of your life (including Wikipedia), then your eyes haven't opened yet to a truth that is larger than science. And if that's the case, it probably won't help you much if I point out that Mars (military, wars, aggression) exalts in Capricorn, the home of Saturn (modern science, death). Aquirata 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You quoted Sagan. Let me point out that, in what you quoted, Sagan says that astrology has no validity. Besides, the reason he is against such statements, is not becuase they aren't correct (ie, astrology is a pseudoscience), but becuase he fears the rest of the community might be put off by the rigid (but correct) stand.

Also in the "Is Astrology relevant to conciousness and Psi?" link, the experiment performed by Geoffrey Dean concludes that there is no hint of support for astrology, which is the point we are trying to make.

There is already a statement made above which describes why astrology is a pseudoscience. Please read that.

Also, you missed the point. Modern science, (or science as we call it today) originated from Galileo and Newton. What was practised before, such as Alchemy, wasn't a science.

The point I'm trying to make is that, the best way we can verify the accuracy of something, is by the scientific method. For example, if any religion claims the earth is 6000 years old, we can refute that claim by science (carbon dating). Because science describes the world around us in the form of the laws of nature, it is essential to our understanding of many subjects. I'm not saying that every article can be described from a scientific viewpoint. What I'm saying is that, when science can provide us with essential information, it must be given importance. For example, science tells us, through controlled experiments, that astrology cannot make accurate predictions. That fact is vital to the description of the astrology. Similarly, in Intelligent Design, the scientific viewpoint is the one which is most likely to be accurate, and hence is mentioned in the introduction to the article. Do you agree with this? 59.92.40.65 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue what Sagan believed in, but let me also point out that he said he didn't feel astrology had any validity whatever. Note the careful wording. Certainly the main point of his statement was that an authoritarian tone without any scientific justification is simply not what scientists are supposed to do. (Authority is associated with Saturn in astrology, so this is a tough pattern for a modern scientist (also mostly Saturn) to avoid.) The point of the quote was to show that Sagan doesn't use the expression astrology is pseudoscience even though it is expressly stated in the Humanist article and even though he doesn't feel astrology is (objectively) valid. Aquirata 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Dean, I'm fully aware of his position. I am quoting non-believers so that you consider what they said. I am not arguing about whether astrology has objective validity. I am simply trying to make you see how a good introduction can be written in accordance with the NPOV policy. It matters a jot whether the scientific point of view is correct or not. Since there is no world-wide consensus on the objective validity of astrology (the last note on the Mars effect was confirming it, btw), any argument regarding objective validity doesn't belong in the introduction. It has a section devoted to this subject. Dean pointed out that some areas [of astrology] are not accessible to objective enquiry. Astrologers maintain that there is much more to astrology than objective validity or scientific proof. In fact they say the objective part is insignificant compared to the rest. So if objective validity addresses only a small slice of astrology, and the statement is argumentative, why include it in the introduction? Do you see the argument that 'Newton was a very difficult and pitiful man' in the introduction of Isaac Newton? When it comes to a balanced view, all we have on alchemy and Newton in the introduction is this: "Despite this renown in mainstream science, Newton spent more time working on either alchemy or chemistry rather than physics." The rest of the four paragraphs are about his scientific achievements. This is a very heavily biased view of Newton the man. Do you wish to take this article in the same direction? Aquirata 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia to carry an article on pseudoscience, without describing it as pseudoscience. 59.92.40.65 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not delude yourself that there is an objective reality which you will discover with the help of science. Any experience, by definition, is subjective. No matter how many instruments you devise, no matter how many theories you prove, the final arbiter of 'truth' is always the human being. As long as you limit your world to the material, you won't be able to escape from the human senses and the human mind, not even with the help of future computers. All you can hope to achieve is a representative description of the material world we perceive. Laws of nature are nothing more than our perception of the world around us. Aquirata 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What you said above, is blatantly, clearly wrong. 59.92.40.65 14:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless we one day become Transhumans! Do see Transhumanism, today's Featured Article. --205.188.117.7 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think what you said above is a part of an interesting philosophical discussion, and one that scientists have been engaged in for hundreds of years. It still does nothing for your side of the argument that this debate is (and should be) running, though, as astrology could be subjected to the same criticism (and the one about how it has never made an accurate prediction).

Your entire tirade is about what exactly? That prominent people do not use the word pseudoscience? That Sagan only "felt" that it was without validity (which I take as pissing on his grave, BTW)? Lundse 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, My point was simply to indicate in a few paragraphs (as much as this can be done) how intricate the subject is and how prominent skeptics approached it with caution. There are many statements by the editors the post was addressed to that show a basic lack of appreciation for this. Aquirata 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Without exception, every debunker of Astrology I've talked to has revealed that they have NOT studied the topic of Astrology. They seem to think that being an authority on some OTHER topic makes them qualified to discuss the issue. It's not that Astrology is a psuedoscience, but that the debunkers are psuedoscientists. Andrew Homer 05:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have been discussing (I presume you still hold me for a 'debunker', although you have never explained why and what you mean by it) is whether astrology is valid from a scientific worldview. To discuss such matters one needs only common sense (as the scientific worldview is based on this), but knowledge of scientific theory, application of theories and a better knowledge of what astrology's claims are also help, of course. I have asked you and others time and again to inform me more explicitly about the claims part, but so far I have been refused any answer except namecalling (and, BTW, 'pseudoscientists' is not really applicable to someone not peddling a specific, unverified, scientific-sounding idea).

In order for something to be objectively valid, there must be some form of evidence - the only thing resemlbing it I have gotten here was the name of a website you claimed had a publication which is faring very well in the financial world and is based on astrology. I could not find it there and the did not answer my mails...

The only thing I am saying is: we need some evidence first. And since the claim (that the position of stars influence our lives) is a very 'big' claim, we need very good evidence. An astrologer saying everyone he has 'helped' has been 'satisfied' is not enough - we need a double-blind test. Lundse 11:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A shot in the pseudoscience wars

Aquirata wrote: "Astrology has traditions going back for thousands of years, and it had been considered as a science for much of that tradition. For most of written history, philosophy stood at the top of the scientific edifice, so astrology, which is also a form of philosophy, was naturally held in high regard."

I disagree with this statement on historical grounds. The history of astrology is far more nuanced and cannot be reduced to saying it has been considered a science for much of the tradition. Nor was it universally respected, even in the Hellenistic period. (I've discussed some of this in other places) Yes, it was immensely popular in, say, the Roman Empire, but it was also banned by certain Roman laws and was criticized on skeptical, philosophical, and religious grounds, even and perhaps especially while it enjoyed some popularity.

Other than the fact that I'm following these articles as an means to avoid work, I generally have not contributed much on these issues because this Wikipedia format leads to numerous historical generalizations sourced from popular (meaning, not necessarily academic) accounts. The problem is intensified with astrology because it is a contemporary practice, and not simply an historical phenomenon. The historical sources are available, but when you have so many people with half-baked opinions and something personal at stake, the pool is muddy.

These efforts to keep the astrology articles free of skepticism are ludicrous. Not that it does or should make a difference, but I can says this and answer Doovinator's challenge (if he would provide whether the SA is precessed, and for the living, travel or natal location), and I can be satisfied with allowing the word 'pseudoscience' as the known category scientists and philosophers of science use for it.

My vote is that this sentence stays: "Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers [citation needed] and as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community." As for citations on astrology as divination, Roy Willis and Patrick Curry, Astrology, Science and Culture, Berg Press, 2005. This work is highly problematic, however there is one good chapter discussing how astrology is viewed by astrologers (useful resource for the proposed theories article). This is a very recent book and takes previous work on this subject such as that by Phillipson in account. Another citation: Geoffrey Cornelius, A Moment of Astrology, (not sure of the press, 1994, reprinted recently - 2004?). Even under Jungian theory (cf Maggie Hyde's work) astrology is still considered divination. The question, then becomes, how does one theorize about divination? Out of scope for this article. Zeusnoos 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The second edition of Cornelius' book was printed in 2003. Aquirata 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If one bothers to study the topic they're discussing, one would know that 5,000 years ago that Astrology started as a divination system. But especially starting with Carl Jung's use of natal charts to analyze his customers around 1900, that the modern strength of Astrology is, now, character analysis. There are many other uses of Astrology, now days: relationship analysis, vocational counseling, political projection, relocation assessment, earthquake studies, commodity projection, stock market analysis, etc. Andrew Homer 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many alleged uses you mean. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever that astrology works. So, applying it to such fields is really a sad reflection of the lack of rational thinking in our society, IMO. This is why, I wanted a section on the percieved harmful effects of astrology in our society. siddharth 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This was just semi-protected so anons cannot edit it. This was caused by 32.106.141.58 but is unfortunate for 59.92.40.65 who did not exceed the revert limit. Try starting an account! Marskell 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The most feared topic among astrologers

Here is copy of the deleted topic of discussion on - Need for Specialist astrologers" - to which there have been no comments / opinions expressed for the last 3 months. Let the lovers of astrology (general public) know the truth from the learned commentrators on astrology.

Need for specialist astrologers

Now a days we find that most of astrologers worldwide intend to show that they are specialist in different branches of astrology, & also guide the aspirants. The debate is whether their claims can have some basis.

Vedic astrology has the richest literature covered in over 400,000 aphorisms, gifted by the Sages & Acharyas in the last over 5 millenniums. It has three main branches viz, astronomy (Siddhanta), Samhitas (dealing with mundane, meteorology, omens & portents, constructional matters, electional astrology etc.) & Predictive (Hora) astrology. The predictive astrology has various branches such as Horoscopy (Jaataki), Electional (Muhurt) astrology, Annual (Tajik) horoscopy, Horary (Prashna) astrology, Female (Streejaataki) horoscopy, Recconstructional (Nashtajaatakam) astrology, Jaimini Sutras (a special system of prediction), Astro - Palmistry (Graha- Samudriki), Remedial astrology etc. etc. But none of the exponents blessed us with treatises on more than one subject. The only except is the great Acharya Varaha Mihir – who gifted us excellent treatises on the three said branches.

Some of the exponents have opined that they have learnt this subject not only in this birth but is the outcome of their Karmas & study in their last births also. It is impossible for human being to learn & master one branch of this futurity science in one birth.

When none on the Hindu exponents have dared to touch more than one subject of Hindu astrology, it is now thought possible by modern astrologers to claim specialization in more than one branch of astrology.

Further when we have now specialist in the field of each branch of the knowledge like engineering, science, medicine, law, economics … ; how come that we have not felt the need for specialist astrologers in specific branch of astrology, & have been accepting astrologers capable to guide aspirants in more than one of its branches.

To cite an example, one may find astrologers generally engaged in predictive astrology; venturing to render guidance in electional branch, but when he would be asked as to how many books he has read on the subject or rather he possesses in his library; the answer shall be obvious.

One may excuse an astrologer claiming specialisation in “Remedial Astrology” if the results do not come, consoling oneself that it may be effect of his Karmas in this & last birth. But how come you can excuse an astrologer who has rendered guidance to an aspirant, who does not have even a single book on electional astrology in his library.

We all understand limitations of knowledge in any field, but that does not authorize one to claim master of different fields, especially in astrology.

--shridharvk , 2, March 2006 (UTC)

It is not surprising that there are no comments / discussions on this topic for the last one month. Astrologers shun, rather fear to talk on this topic for the reasons best known to them.

I invite astrologers to have frank discussion on this topic.

--shridharvk , 4, April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you expect astrologers to flock to your online debate? I think you should go to an astrological conference, where you will find those who may be interested in talking to you. Aquirata 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

There's nothing wrong with specializing, but it's not for everyone. I'll answer anyone's question about anything to the best of my knowledge, look up the answer if I don't have it or ask someone else. If someone comes to me for guidance, I'll give them guidance based on my life experience as well as my astrological knowledge. The one thing I have no intention of doing is dodging around and fudging up the question with a lot of talk about past lives and karma, of which absolutely nobody can legitimately claim they have any first-hand knowledge. Doovinator 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. As opposed to first hand knowledge about what possible effect bodies of silicate rock or hydrogen and helium orbiting many AUs distant could have on human personality? Indeed, lets not fudge the question. Marskell 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The question exactly. The study of this is known as astrology, just as the study of the mutation of human genes brought about by powerful invisible rays emanating from bodies many parsecs distant, let alone AUs, is known as evolution. Doovinator 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck no. That's not what evolution is. Please do read the wikipedia article on evolution. And please note the many experimental evidences, backing the theory.siddharth 04:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck yes. The idea that invisible cosmic rays can cause the genetic mutations which lead to evolution is widely accepted, read up yourself.Doovinator 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you misunderstood it. Not all mutation is caused by electromagnetic radiation, and there is much more to evolution than mutation. Besides, there is a world of difference between astrology and evolution. There's tons of experimental evidence for evolution. Where's the experimental evidence for astrology? siddharth 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Not all" is not what I said. That mutation can be caused by invisible rays from stars billions of miles distant is accepted by science, that the same can be said for effects on human events is what astrology contends. That it can't be "disproven" by a certain critical "tonnage" of crappy, biased experiments isn't astrology's concern. Doovinator 18:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think background radiation from the Earth is the bigger effect, but yes, one can measure particles and rays coming a long way off. Oddly, noone has ever measured anything which seems to interact with DNA, brains or anything else with a non-random effect such as "making them more outgoing". There just does not seem to be "more-outgoing-rays" out there...

Mutations are pretty basic stuff as phenomena goes. That being a great athlete or intellectual is similarly basic and can be changed by some sort of un-seen/-measured effect is quite another kind of phenomena. It is quite like saying that since gravity can affect bodies with mass at a distance, so brown-spotted cows must be able to reprogram software at a distance. Lundse 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Doovinator 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Doov misses the point about the link between cosmic rays and evolution. Yes, cosmic rays are known to be one source of mutations. NO, mutations are not evolution. Gene mutations, from whatever source, are mostly without consequence. Some are fatal. A few turn out to be randomly beneficial. That's the deck of cards that evolution has to play with. SO different from a speculative direct relationship between planetary positions and human traits. El Ingles 18:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of astrology

Exactly what I thought when presented with astrology. It makes the exact same anount of sense, note that I actually have said more regarding the workings of astrology than "huh" and that this is actually entirely unnecessary, the results matter... Lundse 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you know nothing about the workings of astrology, something you've made abundantly clear. Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In your blind zest to defend astrology, you're missing the point. What Lundse is doing is applying the scientific methodology to astrology, and for this, knoweldge of astrology is irrelevant. For example, you don't need to know thermodynamics, but you can still see that it works each time you drive a car. On the other hand, no controlled experiments has ever shown astrology to work. siddharth 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse has been passing off opinion for knowledge. Why should he stop now? It's types like him that makes it easy for me to pick up chicks at parties. The Lundses of the world inadvertantly enhance my social life. You to should employ a little psychological jujitsu with the Lundses of the world to improve your love life. Andrew Homer 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with my opinions and the irritating things I told you about eg. hyperdimensional theory I suggest you answer me and tell me what is wrong. As it is you just make personal attacks. And if you do not stop, I wil file a complaint about it since I have had quite enough now. Lundse 09:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's tying you to the computer and forcing you to comment? Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Doovinator, I don't understand you're previous statement. Are you supporting Andrews personal attack?! siddharth 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse has indeed been passing off opinion for knowledge; that statement I support. Doovinator 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What opinions are these? The ones on scientific validity? I am afraid you do not really seperate understanding astrology and understanding science - I know about the latter and can apply certain methods and understandings to various subjects, including ones I know very little about (hence my insistence on talking about results). I do not know about the methodologies of astrology and noone has yet been able to make any argument as to why I should, they (eg. you and Homer) just claim I do not know what I am talking about. Please note that when I talk about testing, it makes very little sense to attack me for not understanding astrology - you might as well chastice me for not knowing about fishing rods, neither is relevant. Lundse 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What's amazing is that you keep defending this absolutely untenable position -- no, you're even proud of your lack of astrological knowledge! Just as astrologers without knowledge of the scientific method cannot properly test the objective validity of astrology, scientists (let alone skeptics or debunkers) cannot objectively validate astrology without astrological knowledge. It is that simple, and the sooner you realize that, the better for everyone. Aquirata 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. One can test eg. whether a car can drive without knowing about engines. And one can test astrological claims if one only knows what those claims are. Certainly, one would need the help of astrologers to find those claims (and probably further on; making out horoscopes, predictions, etc. to test). If I claimed I could see the future, would you need to read all my books before testing it? Or could you just check if what I claimed would happen actually happened? I am amazed that you cannot see this, but I think it explains a lot about your writings the last months (and why you agree with AH's personal attacks). Lundse 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No car can drive. It requires a driver. You seem to know what all of them are already. Beg me. Get on your knees. Kiss my ring. Mayhap I shall help you. I might actually think about reading one or two, yes. I claim the sun will rise tomorrow. Wait and see. Oh, we see it all right.Personal attacks again. When did Aquirata agree? Doovinator 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've undone Doovinator's mutilation of Lunse's comments above and put them into a single post. He can feel free to rewrite them so his position is clearer. But in future don't insert comments into the middle of peoples comments, it makes the talk page unreadable. Jefffire 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So look in the history. Doovinator 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology as a science

I've always viewed astrology as a science. Not a "hard" science, like physics (although wander over to particle physics sometime if you think physics is actually a "hard" science), but a "soft" science like psychology or sociology. One can take measurements of the race, income, social standing, etc. of a population, but can't possibly state that little Tameka Jones, whose mother is black and whose father is a Welsh/Asian plumber making $47,000 per year, will therefore grow up to be a veterinarian. Astrology is the same way. One can see that someone has a Gemini sun, Aquarius moon and Leo rising and therefore state that they are likely to be talkative, romantically attracted to intellectual types and drawn to theatrics, but to surmise that they will therefore be a movie star and not an athlete or a housewife or a physicist is a whole different ball of wax. Astrology follows very rigid scientific principles; if you don't think so try to draw and interpret a chart sometime, but the application and interpretation of the geometric patterns formed by the planets as they relate to individual lives is of necessity a fuzzy and imperfect thing. The same rules which apply to musical harmonics apply to astrological interpretation, but to scientifically analyze a clarinet solo, for example, and state the individual notes which lead to a blue mood or a jazzy and excited feeling is a very difficult and imprecise science--though a science it indeed is, see music theory--although absolutely everyone instinctively knows the difference, in their soul and in their bones. Such is astrology as well. Doovinator 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This also makes it testable using statistical methodology. It fails. Jefffire 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of evidence is different from evidence of lack. Your conclusion is called logical fallacy. Ignoring evidence, on the other hand, is evidence of ignorance. Aquirata 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to science. It is different from mathamatics. To begins, lets see some papers from reliable sources to back up your claim of evidence. Nature will suffice. Jefffire 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is only one paper from Nature and it is highly controversial with no basis in astrology. Piper Almanac 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear me, looks like there is nothing then... Jefffire 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Jupiter has no moons for those refusing to look in the telescope. After all, publications in Nature are a result of random mutations, so one needs to look elsewhere for enlightenment. Aquirata 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you challenging the reliability of Nature? Jefffire 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology Wikiproject

I wanted to make an announcement that I started a much needed astrology wikiproject today in order to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. I'm looking for people with some sort of background or expertise in the subject to join the project. Or just anyone that would be willing to help out. If you are interested then please check out the project page. --Chris Brennan 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, Chris - thanks for setting this up! Aquirata 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NOR

"Personality tests, however, do not test astrology claims because astrology does not claim correlation to them. Also, experiments based on personality tests may be flawed because they lack controls for contextual errors." These sentences (and subsequent) are textbook original research and should be removed. Marskell 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of undiscussed major POV, OR or Unreliably sourced claims recently edited into the validity section to make special pleading cases for astrology. They violate WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and WP:V pretty heavily. Jefffire 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology

A vote is taking place on the deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article which is the main page for the section within this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology. Lumos3 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The psuedo-academics are at it again. The Inquisition occurred DURING the Renaissance. These debunker psuedo-sceptics can't accept a simple concept that scientific research tools have YET to catch-up with Astrology, a valid field for 5,000 years. If every scientific research tool that can be invented has already been invented, then why is the Patent Office still open? Andrew Homer 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok... --Chris Brennan 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro to objective validity

Aquirata, you reverted the statement "While astrology is a very controversial subject, there is a clear consensus among the scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for its beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary[6]."

That's not POV, it's a true, sourced fact. I am going to reinsert that, But I want to discuss it first. Also, please don't delete sourced statements, without discussing it first like what Doovinator did. That seems like vandalism siddharth 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the wording as it stands is that it tends to "teach the controversy". I prefer the version that srin cites above (but then I would, wouldn't I). Marskell 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Siddharth version is much better. There is a clear scientific consensus and it is dishonest not to present that. Jefffire 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason your wording was POV is that this view must be presented much later in the article. See: Wikipedia:Define and describe, Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. Whether astrology is objectively valid is irrelevant to most astrologers and most clients. What we need as an introduction is a definition of what astrology is. Criticising something you haven't defined makes no sense. It is this same reason that you don't see criticism of science, religion, etc, in the introductory sentences. In fact, the introduction mus t be left to practitioners of astrology, science, religion, etc, because only they know what the subject matter is. Aquirata 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the situation. Astrology is "defined" in the main introduction to the article. I put the sentence in the introduction to the objective validity. Also, the sentence I inserted is a fact, not opinion(Do you agree?). Since you obviously misunderstood it, I'm inserting the sentences again. If you have any problems, please discuss it here before making changes. siddharth 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the mistake is mine. Excuses include lack of time and being on the edge after continual reverts by another editor. Apologies. Aquirata 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology and science

• Astrology is not controversial among astrologers and much of the public, but is "very controversial" only with regard to modern science.
• The Humanist article presents opinion, not facts or data.
• Removed earlier mention of acausal, discussed later.
• Added argument and citation against using self-reporting questionnaires (personality tests).
• Added references to strong astrological claims in single-trait testing. Note, these are claims and can use "non-scientific" sources.
• Added claim of bias among scientific researchers.

Piper Almanac 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I changed the name given the problems everyone keeps pointing out with it. The paragraphs all basically discuss astrology and science so I think it accurate enough.

I'm also using the present perfect "has been controversial"—because, well, it has been but to say that it is is probably inaccurate. Scientists aren't shouting it about at it conferences as far I know. Marskell 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the name change and recent tweaks. Zeusnoos 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear any confusion, the fact that I referred to is that there is a clear consensus within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for its beliefs. While I don't agree with the content, I'm glad to see your attempt at a constructive edit to the article, Piper Almanac. Well done! - siddharth 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So do you consider research psychologists a part of the scientific community or not? Based on the research journals I started listing on the OVA talk page, there is no such consensus, unless of course somewhere is a similar pact created by an org such as the APA to cease and desist research dealing with astrology. Zeusnoos 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point Zeusnoos. My question is, did the research papers follow the scientific method? Did the psychologists perform any repeatable, controlled experiments to test their claims? Importantly, were they published in scientific peer-reviewed journals? If there is any such research paper which does support astrology, please do reference and include that.

To answer your question, I don't consider such research psychologists whose works aren't published in peer-reviewed scientific journals as a part of the mainstream scientific community, because psychology is very fuzzy and can easily deviate from the scientific method. It's very difficult to check the validity of such research papers. There are unfortunately many cranks disguised as psychologists. siddharth 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are crank psychologists. However, the journals I listed that present the results of scientific research are what you would find in a university library. For instance, psychology journals at university of Michigan:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/projour.html

Here's a fuller list of peer-reviewed psychology journals:

http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/covlist.html

Not on this list is the "British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology" but that's because it was split into two journals.

This is why I protested the uncommented deletion of the extroversion studies on OVA. Zeusnoos 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this Zeus: "a clear consensus that there is no verified scientific basis...yip-yap...particularly within the physical sciences such as astronomy. Behavioural sciences (k?) such as psychology have shown a greater willingness to at least examine astrology's claims, although these disciplines have themselves been subject to criticism over adherence to the scientific method."

I know the last clause is a caveat on top of a caveat but we should cover our bases. This will of course need a source. A meta comment on research as such rather than an individual paper. Marskell 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding something like this with some qualifications. I prefer Siddharth's wording on the OVA deletion page "the majority of the scientific community". As far as psychology goes, the field itself is divided. The criticisms over methodology are aimed more at substudies which are not scientific such as psychoanalysis and similar theories used in clinical practice. Otherwise, when I was a student and research assistant in psych, the research standards, statistical methods, etc, were strict. The dept. was notable in psychophysiology, perception studies, industrial psych., etc. I think 'social sciences' may be more accurate since it covers sociology as well as psychology. Zeusnoos 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the science community per se it should be stronger wording than "majority" (which can implicitly be taken as suggesting a minority still debating). I'll actually accept the criticism that scientists don't even bother to look at it seriously—as Dean says (is he the loony you reference above?) "its like believing fairies". In the "hard" sciences (in my amateur opinion) its not as if a majority brings it up to refute some small dissenting group—its simply not mentioned in the same way an Earth centered universe is not mentioned. So someone asks Stephen Hawking his opinion at a lecture. Answer: "rubbish" (sorry for the appeal to authority). Of course, the hard sciences can be wrong.

My question for psychology would be: are the criticized subdisciplines those which are producing the research related to astrology? Marskell 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the answer to your questions Sid are all in the Objective validity of astrology article. Aquirata 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, and this is why I don't object to removing the redhead study (or at least bracketing it as something claimed by astrology), even though the only critical response to it was looney. As far as Urban-Lurain goes, he might have gained more credibility if his work had been first published in a journal. Do you know if he has produced other research in this area since then? Zeusnoos 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but will write to the author to find out. Aquirata 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Letter sent. Aquirata 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added 'fact' tag to 'clear consensus' sentence. The ref provided doesn't back up the statement made. Aquirata 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder to editors. Astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 10:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Jefffire's modifications with the exception of his removal of the word 'questionable'. Justification:

• Astrological journals are perfectly reliable sources of information of astrological research. This has been explained to you a number of times by various editors. Noone shares your POV, so please stop doing edits of this nature.
• Your addition of the text "Further study of these claims found no such link" is not warranted. The study cited in the preceding sentence is dated 2005; your references are 1997 or older. Please provide an up-to-date reference if you feel strongly about this.
• What Randi is practicing is called pseudoscience by many scientists, skeptics and debunkers. He writes the rules and he is also the judge on his own panel. This is a debunking campaign with no credibility whatsoever. If you want a further reference to back up the statement, then tag the sentence, but please don't remove others' work without a good reason.

I hope the above will be sufficient. However, please feel free to argue your case. Aquirata 13:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A fair few other editors have explained to you why astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information, including an administrator. Discuss this if you like but please do not distort the truth. This is especially important since it is exactly this kind of insistance on unreliable sources which will have been the cause of the imminant death of the article objective validity of astrology. Astrological journals are not, and are never likely to become, reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Randi runs a competition, not a "debunking campaign" in the million dollar challenge. The rules of which have been verified as fair and honest by outside investigators. Jefffire 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction here. Astrological research is not scientific research. So, astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information. Are we agreed on that? siddharth 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you haven't even stated that you'd be willing to cooperate on astrological articles, so why should your opinion matter here? You keep repeating the same things over and over without a logical argument. If you take the stance that "astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information", then how can you accept scientific journals as reliable sources of astrological information? Furthermore, how can you accept then even astrological journals as reliable sources of scientific information when it suits your purpose but reject them when they present information that goes against your beliefs? Do you understand the contradictions? With this kind of thinking, we'll never get anywhere. If your intention is to contribute to the astrological articles on Wikipedia, then my guess is that you'll have to make a move from your current position (studying astrology would also help). I would also be interested to find out who those outside investigators of Randi were and what they found. Do you have a reliable source for your statement? Aquirata 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, Sid! Just because something is astrological, it cannot be considered scientific? Is this what you are trying to say? The 20th century has seen countless numbers of scientific inquiries into astrology. Do you have any knowledge of astrology and astrological research? Aquirata 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In a sense I agree with Aquirata (holy shit! ;). If for some reason astrological research did wind up in Nature then I wouldn't argue with including it. The journal/source is the paramount consideration not how we label the research after the fact. Marskell 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy sh*t!!! Aquirata 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, though I suppose I'm agreeing with Jeff too. Anyhow, start from the source the paper is in, not the paper itself. I can live with psychology journals that are university affiliated, for instance. Marskell 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's better! :) I don't quite understand "start[ing] from the source the paper is in, not the paper itself." Do you mean affiliation? Aquirata 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That means correlation is not a reliable source of scientific information. Jefffire 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This comedy of errors can be solved if you realize the ambiguity in the adjective 'astrological'. I don't think the phrase "astrological research" should be used in this article (or whatever incarnation of OVA) because: 1) this phrase is used by astrologers to cover something such as someone's views on the meaning of the Nodes of the Moon in solar return charts. 2) this phrase could mean research about astrology or about astrological claims. THis could be scientific research but not necessarily. Scientific research in this context is scientific research about astrology. I think 1) is used more frequently - by astrologers.Zeusnoos 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point noted, but this madness of using unreliable sources has to end. Article Objective validity of Astrology will probably be deleted soon and a major reason for that is the input of large numbers of sections verified only from unreliable sources like this and a flagrant disregard of WP:Reliable Sources. Can we imagine the state of articles like Evolution if this insistance on unreliable journals were to be continue there? The blurb of Correlation makes it clear that it is a POV publication and not a scientific source. It is not in any concievable way, shape or form an acceptable reliable source of scientific information. No amount of insisting that the rules are "ambiguous" and open to "interpratation" as Aquirata suggest will ever change that. Jefffire 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell's long-winded thoughts on sourcing

To answer, reiterate, and so forth.

1 a) Zeus' observation that "astrological research" is a misnomer best sums up my last post. We don't/shouldn't include "astrological research"—we include scientific research about astrology. Defined as: work published in a recognized scientific publication, with an obvious impact factor, and/or affiliated with a university etc. If Nature says dogs are born with the desire to not crap in my living room, then I accept the point's inclusion even if owning five puppies tells me it's BS. The place of publication is paramount and ultimately determines whether we can call it scientific. We've waxed lyrical about the scientific method here (myself as guilty as anyone) but perhaps this has missed the point: "scientific" for the purpose of Wikipedia is what the Real World says "scientific" is. In a sense, we trust journals like Nature because a (somewhat) formalized culture of science has developed that says information systems like Wikipedia must trust journals like Nature. Does this comes close to a Hiedeggerian critique? Holy shit again.

"Does this..." - Closer to a Foucaultian observation. Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1 b) Science can talk about whatever it wants to. If your response to the above is "but why should we trust a science journal to talk about astrology" the answer is the last four hundred years of knowledge gathering (or "information discourse", as you like).

2) Per point 1, I believe we should treat Correlation as a dubious source. I doubt it has an impact factor (citations by scientists in other publications); I doubt you could cite it to present a point of fact in a grad dissertation at a modern western university; I doubt a university would consider it a "real" publication in hiring a lecturer. Of course, you can show me wrong on all that. Kepler (?) college alone won't do it however ;).

3) As an important caveat to point 1 and 2, for Wiki purposes: dubious sources are permissible in articles about themselves. This is an established part of Wiki culture and it's implicit on WP:V. I do not believe, everything else being equal, Correlation should be considered a reliable source but I can accept it on the astrology article (as opposed to the main Mars article, say). The questions then are how do we deploy it, present a caveat etc.

That's my thoughts for now. Marskell 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your clarity in reasoning. Let me digest and respond accordingly. Aquirata 00:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When discussing scientific studies on astrology, M and J are correct, Correlations is dubious. That's the way of the world. However, I think it's acceptable to discuss material from such sources when dealing with the topic of astrology in general (or in the context of certain subtopics) because there is no astrology without astrologers and what they think and discuss. When I want to know something about believers in alien abduction, I might have to go to dubious sources to find out how certain themes developed and are perpetuated (like blues vs greys). I might want to know how the whole world-ending-in-2012 thing started, and reputable journals and authors of Mayan anthropology or archaeology are not likely to reveal this. Instead I have sniff out from believer sources that this reading of the Mayan calendar can be traced directly to some cult leader in Oregon. Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is largely my position. I have no objections whatsoever to Correllation being used as a source for astrologers beliefs or practices. But when it comes to scientific matter, such as validity of the subject or stistical tests, then it is not acceptable. You may use Correllation as a source throughout the article, But not within the section "scientific analysis of astrology".Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Correlation is not so dubious as a source of astrological claims. The fact that it "appears" to bear some resemblence to something scientific is perhaps irrelevant from the scientific POV. In truth Correlation is a very strong source of astrological claims that astrologers would tend to strongly agree with. You can hardly find a better source than this to represent strong astrological beliefs. The other books and articles, which have appeared in OVA supporting astrology also represent the strongest of all astrological claims. Marskell has stated "astrological sources for astrologial claims." This is where you go to find them. Piper Almanac 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But you are using it as a source for scientific claims. Claiming that there is a correllation between signs and vocation is a scientific claim. Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted your edits with a slight rewording to make it clear the sources can't be regarded as scientific. With luck this will be a happy compromise. Jefffire 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the claims of astrology appear to take the form of correlations, and are even presented as correlations. Piper Almanac 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell:

• 1a: No, scientific research into astrology is research following the scientific method. It doesn't have to be published in a mainstream scientific publication. You can research UFO phenomena in a scientific way, couldn't you? Would this research be published in a mainstream scientific journal? Most certainly not. Is this research scientific? Most certainly is because it follows the scientific method. The place of publication is a separate issue.
• 1b: Mainstream scientific journals haven't been publishing astrological articles regularly, therefore their editorial board would be incapable of recognizing acceptable material. They are not a reliable source of astrological information.
• 2: This point falls because it relies on the above. Correlation is a reliable source of astrological information and astrological research and scientific research into astrology. It meets every criteria of a reliable publication.
• 3: I appreciate your gesture, but this point becomes moot in light of the above.

Aquirata 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find reliable scientific sources for astrological claims then that is your problem, not ours. Wikipedia's policies will not be compromised because the best you can do is not good enough. Jefffire 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

by the way, astrolog?

In the number of years that I have been dealing with this topic, I never heard an astrologer called an 'astrolog'. The only use of this word I've seen is as chart calculation software that ran on IBM computers before Windows. Can some one fill me in on this name? Some interesting names for astrologers can be found in the 17th century -- such as Astrologaster. Maybe a list of historical appellations could be included on the history of astrology page. Zeusnoos 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. I've never heard of it either and I read a lot. Piper Almanac 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you! --Chris Brennan 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen "astrolog" used for at least 30 years, but not for an astrologer. It referred to a list of aspects, etc. for a month or whatever. Doovinator 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Astromancy & Astrology -- The Same Thing?

"Astromancy" is the same thing as "Astrology," correct? The Astromancy page states otherwise; someone with more knowledge on this subject should go change it if the two are actually synonymous (it seems that they are). --172.147.89.38 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Astromancy refers to a type of astrology-influenced magic; not really the same thing, as astrology claims no magical component. Doovinator 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mars effect & Ertel

Aquirata is adamant that all sourced criticisms of the Mars Effect studies be removed since the 2005 reference is more chronologically advanced. However upon reading the reference it is clear that the bulk of it is drawn from information published before the 1997 skeptical inquirer report, and what comes afterwards doesn't actually address all of the skeptical inquirer criticisms. I've written the valid criticisms of Ertel's and Gauquilin's work and sourced them. The article as it stands in Aquirata's prefered version is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I remind editors that Wikipedia is not here for them to publish their hidden history of the word or to start their overturning of the scientific orthodoxy. Please overturn the scientific orthodox in the real world, then you may do so here. Jefffire 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not saying that you actually read an astrological article in an astrological journal? Holy sh*t, J, what will you think of next?

Regarding your claim that "it is clear that the bulk of it [i.e. the list of references in the article] is drawn from information published before the 1997 skeptical inquirer report, and what comes afterwards doesn't actually address all of the skeptical inquirer criticisms", let's look at some chronology (extracted from the article):

• ‘The case is already stronger than that for almost any area of research in psychology.’ Wrote Eysenck and Nias in 1982, concerning the work of Francoise and Michel Gauquelin.
• Later in 1988 Geoffrey Dean, doyen of the sceptics, wrote an approving postscript to a review of the Gauquelin edifice, concluding optimistically, ‘One looks forward to his autobiography.’
• In 1987, Suitbert Ertel, in a visit to the Gauquelin’s ‘laboratory’ happened to notice that as well as birth-data of the 2888 eminent sportsmen of known birthdate and time, published, there were in addition 1503 unpublished, less-eminent sportsmen. The latter data [showed] dips ... at the ‘key sectors’ just where peaks occurred in the published data. Ertel published this finding (Figure 1) in what was then a hard-to-find US journal the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Suitbert Ertel, ‘Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes’ Mars Effect: Association co-varies with Eminence’, JSE 1988, 2,1).
• Then something more terrible happened: not merely his suicide but the destruction of his entire database, in 1991.
• The hard-hitting sceptics’ articles came out a few years later, publicising what Ertel called ‘bias’ and what they called cheating. Overall there has been to date an excellent sequence of 11 articles in the JSE:

• 1988, 2,1 Is There a Mars Effect? Michel Gauquelin
• 1988, 2,1 Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-Varies With Eminence Prof. Ertel
• 1990, 4,1 Planetary Influences on Human Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"): Too Absurd for a Scientific Explanation? Arno Mueller
• 1992, 6,3 The Gauquelin Effect Explained? Comments on Arno Mueller's Hypothesis of Planetary Correlations Prof. Ertel
• 1993, 7,2 Puzzling Eminence Effects Might Make Good Sense Prof. Ertel
• 1993, 7,3 Dutch Investigations of the Gauquelin Mars Effect Jan Nienhuys
• 1997, 11,1 Biased Data Selection in Mars Effect Research Ertel & Ken Irving
• 1997, 11,1 Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine? Kurtz, Nienhuys and Sandhu
• 1997, 11,3 The "Mars Effect" As Seen by the Committee PARA J. Dommanget
• 2000, 14,3 The Mars Effect Is Genuine: On Kurtz, Nienhuys, and Sandhu's Missing the Evidence Prof. Ertel & Ken Irving
• 2000, 14,3 Bulky Mars Effect Hard to Hide: Comment on Dommanget's Account of the Belgian Skeptics' Research Prof. Ertel

• OK, so after looking at that list, are you trying to imply that something that was published in the Skeptical Enquirer in 1997 (and "important" by your standards) was not addressed by Ertel and Irving three years later? You've got to be kidding me. Sorry, but the scientific orthodoxy stood in support of the Ertel-Gauquelin eminence effect in the year 2000. Unless of course you have a more recent reference. Aquirata 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more things before you go and revert my edit again hastily and without base:

• First, this is what Nienhuys says in SE: "The so-called Mars effect has haunted science for forty years now, but there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It may have been an illusion after all." It may have been, he's not sure.
• Second, the 1997 SE article is "a condensed and amended version of a paper presented at the World Skeptic's Conference, June 20-23, 1996, in Amherst, New York." That's 1996.
• Third, you'll notice good activity in JSE after this conference in 1997. The second article that year was co-authored by Nienhuys.
• Fourth, look at the title of the second last article. You will notice the author of your much beloved 1997 Skeptical Enquirer article. A direct reference.

In summary, please spare us from your uninformed edits. Aquirata 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, your research into the sources and authors on both sides of this issue has raised this article to a higher level of historical accuracy. I was considering doing it myself but you beat me to it and I think you did a better job than I would have done. Thank you for the hard work. Piper Almanac 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper, Thanks for your kind words. J inspired me in a way because he bugged the heck out of me for doing his senseless reverts over and over, all the while carefully observing the 3RR. At any rate, I'm glad we were able to put this issue to bed. Aquirata 09:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"This analysis, based on citation frequencies, rules out sampling bias in choosing the athletes in both directions, pro and con" is an OR statement (more simply, so is "a very simple analysis") and I removed it. The criticism is sourced and per due weight it belongs. Marskell 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By way of a compromise I'm reducing the size of the Ertel section to include just his claims and a link to the work and combining it with the other research. As a consequence the criticisms of the work will also be taken out to be covered only by the overarching "not scientifically peer reviewed" criticism of the whole section (which is probably the most important. There really isn't any need to go into the level of detail that was there before, and this solves a lot of the content disputes such as undue weight and the like. Additionally I'm making a distinction between Gauqurlin's (sp) work (which is indisputably notable, if heavily slated), and later work which isn't as notable. Jefffire 12:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, pretty well balanced, and overall the section reads well. I say, good work all around. Doovinator 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly become familiar with Ertel's work before tampering. Ertel did not collect data. He used all the Mars sports data already collected by the researchers. This included all of Gauquelin's unused "lesser athletes" data, as described above by Aquirata, and the CFEPP's unused Algerian data (a clear bias in Irving's view).

Ertel's method was extremely simple. He ranked the athletes by how many hits they had in 5 agreed-upon sports anthologies. That is all he did. This is not rocket science. This method makes sampling bias irrelevant, the more athletes the better. Ertel stated this clearly so this is not OR.

Ertel's analysis is the most relevant finding and has had the greatest impact on the whole Mars effect affair. It has remained without serious challenge since it was first published 18 years ago. It has been applied with similar results to all the Mars-athletes experiments, including the CSICOP (Zelen), Para, and CFEPP tests, as Aquirata has already stated above.

The suggestion that Ertel's analysis has not been peer-reviewed is completely untenable because it has been critically discussed and written about among his peers since the time that he first published it nearly two decades ago. Peer criticism of Ertel's analysis, such as it is, is not difficult to find. I am reverting to the earlier correct version. Piper Almanac 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it hasn't been peer reviewed, I'm saying it hasn't been scientifically peer reviewed, which is what is important. Until Ertel publishes in a mainstream journal his work can't be scientifically respected. This is the primary reason Ertel's work has gone "unchallenged", because from a scientific perspective it doesn't even exist. I've reworded the relevent sections to make a clear distinction between peer review (which even creationist journals have) and scientific peer review. Jefffire 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My changes have been completely reverted with the claim they are POV. Seeing as how I've made no factual changes, and in fact taken out skeptical arguements, I don't know what to make of that. Jefffire 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you will not get away with your POV wording. It's a fact that the Ertel eminence effect has not been challenged for six years. That it hasn't been published in a mainstream scientific journal is irrelevant because the skeptics are well aware of Ertel's work, they have been publishing their views in the same journal for many years. The rest of the scientific community couldn't care less, and wouldn't even read the article even if it was published in Nature or Science. The chances of having something like this published in a mainstream publication today is practically nil, so your argument is political in nature (appealing to authority). Before you venture again on a mission of this kind, please familiarize yourself with relevant research and the topic being discussed. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to get the facts straight. Aquirata 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on Verifiability. Essentially what you are claiming in this section is that the Mars effect has been proved and scientifically verified. However as in WP:V and WP:RS, it says that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It doesn't matter if all the skeptics know about this journal, the fact remains that this is not an exceptional source. Please respect these wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you define an exceptional claim? Aquirata 10:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the assertation that the Mars effect is real and has been scientifically verified is not an exceptional claim? I think a fair few astronomers would be surprised, to say the least. Jefffire 11:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a question. You are jumping to conclusions. Aquirata 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims are things that are surprising, counter-inuitive, fantstical, dubious or otherwise "exceptional". To get to the issue at hand, I think we can fairly say that Ertel's claims are exceptional. Jefffire 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An objective definition, please. Science cannot be based on 'gut feel'. Aquirata 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you never read WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence? Based on your flagrant abuses of WP:RS, mabey you haven't. Now, how about an answer from you? Are Ertels claims unexceptional? Jefffire 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have changed the meaning of the two sentences by assuming that Eretel and Gauquelin are the same person. You keep doing edits of similar nature (assuming that all astrological claims have been made by Ertel), and wasting your and others' time in the process. Please stop meddling in this article if you have nothing to add. Aquirata 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made no such assumption, your arguements are quickly veering off into irrational absurdity. I've been making it clear that Ertel's claims are distinct from Guaquelin's. Please answer my earlier question, are Ertel's claims unexceptional? Jefffire 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you chat about 'exceptional claims' and then in the background butcher my addition to the article without saying anything about it here. Secondly, your "edit" now says this: "In 1988 and 1996, German Professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel published the most recent claim for a Mars effect suggesting it increased in proportion to the eminence of the athletes.[26][27][28] and claimed an astrological correllation to physicians (the Saturn effect).[29][30]" You have just removed the author of the latter claim, which is Gauquelin! Ertel has nothing to do with the Saturn effect. The MArs effect has nothing to do with the Saturn effect. The sentence makes no sense in its current version. Please read up on astrological research before making any edits of this nature. Aquirata 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will correct the conglameration of the two then. If you had mentioned in a calm and rational manner rather than making vague accussations and blindly reverting then the error could have been corrected earier. Jefffire 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata's accusations are anything but vague, but has documented them above and put a lot of work into making it clear. Piper Almanac 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The new sentence - "These two claims stemming mostly from Gauquelin's and Ertel's research are presently unchallenged." is extremely POV, dishonest and misleading. By the same logic, I could dredge up about a hundred creationist claims which are "unchallenged". The reason the are unchallenged is that there is no need to disprove work until it get published in a proper journal. Please do not try to mislead readers in this manner. Jefffire 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the truth of the statement? Do you dispute the source? Please explain why you think it is "extremely POV, dishonest and misleading." Aquirata 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I could make a claim today, and then say that it is unchallenged. And as it happens there are plenty of challenges to these works printed pre 1997 on the skeptical enquirer article. Making the claim that they are "unchallenged", when much of it is, and there is no scientific reason to challenge it (since it is viewed as junk science by the mainstream), is an obvious attempt to mislead the reader into believing that is correct. Jefffire 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the facts. The latest research with respect to eminence on the Saturn effect was published in 1994, and on the Mars effect, in 2000. These remain unchallenged. It is a statement of fact, properly sourced. Aquirata 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ignoring the fact that it is irrelevent and misleading to the reader. I'm willing to bet that there are dozens or astrologers claims in astrologers journals which are "unchallenged". The trick would be to have them unchallenged in a respected scientific publication. Jefffire 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The two claims have been widely discussed with involvement from both sides. Aquirata 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the underlying fact that none of these "unchallenged" articles have been published in respected mainstream scientific journals. Until they do, presenting them as "unchallenged" is misleading to the reader. Currently your logic is near identicle to creationist editor's flawed arguements for their journals. Just because everyone knows about them doesn't make them respectable. Jefffire 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which WP policy states that only articles published in 'respected mainstream scientific journals' are relevant? Aquirata 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, are we to presume that when skeptical researchers hear that someone (in this case a German professor with a reputation for smoking out bias and overstated claims) has overturned their research (and the word does tend to get out about such things) they will calmly refuse to defend themselves and ignore the claims, leaving them unchallenged for years? What sort of skeptics are these? We are accustomed to see skeptics go after every minute detail of claims in even the most trashy sources. I'm sorry but your argument has no credibility. In the world of science, silence is consent. Piper Almanac 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims and evidence

It has been argued that astrology research claims and evidence violate WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence and this has gotten into a dispute over the definition of what is "exceptional". Fortunately, all we need do is read the guidelines, as suggested by Jefffire. Here's the definition point-by-point and how astrology research claims stack up.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • The Mars effect claims are widely known, perhaps even by millions.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • This is not a recent development but has been ongoing for over 30 years.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • There is no unusual report that anyone has reversed an interest or position.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • These claims are supported by published normal science and statistical research methods using well-established protocols. Knowledge of astrology research claims are essential for the prevailing view in the relevant academic community studying astrology, among which are Bath and Hampton Universities in the UK and Kepler College in the US, plus dozens of academics worldwide who are conducting astrology research or replication, or who are writing about astrology research claims both pro and con. There is also sustained interest among less relevant academic communities, including interested scientists, statisticians, philosophers. These communities and individuals would wish to remain informed of the current research and would seek this information at Wikipedia. There is no claim of conspiracy.

Astrology research claims comfortably pass all of these WP criteria. Piper Almanac 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research, Piper - thanks for setting the record straight! Aquirata 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Piper is wrong on each and every count on this one. The belief in the Mar's effect is non-exceptional, but the validity of it would be very much acceptable. Please do not confuse the belief and validity. Jefffire 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)