Talk:Astrology/Archive 8

Bickering

All of this petty bickering is really counterproductive guys. Could both sides give it a rest already? --Chris Brennan 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys cannot agree on a version and insist on continuing this dispute, please take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and maybe go through some of those steps (like RfC or RfM). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some experience in dispute resolution. When the objectives and motivations of the sides are so diverse, no wishful thinking, mediation or arbitration will provide long-term remedy to the situation. The only real solution is to 'talk things out', as gently under the circumstances as possible, which is what we've been doing for some time now. Things have definitely improved, but there is still a long way to go. Aquirata 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per request at WP:RFPP. Deathphoenix's comments are spot on. Hopefully consensus can be reached soon. -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The timing of this is unfortunate as it froze a number of POV changes by Siddharth not discussed here prior to making the changes. Now we have to contend with those on top of the usual disagreements. Aquirata 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are POV, and I think they are constructive to the article. Can you please tell me which parts you think are POV? I did reference most of my additions. Also, it's my personal opinion, that some discussions here degrade rapidly into bickering and that's why I applied my interpretation of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and made the edits. Still, I apologize and I will discuss any future edits I make. siddharth 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding BOLD and IAR, jumping in with many changes without discussion when there is an ongoing effort to come to a reasonable wording acceptable to all shows lack of respect for other editors. This is one of the sore points of editing this article. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Aquirata 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is something which most editors here are guilty of then, including you. Jefffire 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide examples of this behaviour when making references to it. Otherwise, it is just a baseless accusation. Aquirata 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Since this article was protected recently due to edit warring, please add what you think are the current sore points, or a possible template of how you think the article should be, or any comments or suggestions below

• I think the protected version of the article is fine. siddharth 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Resonably fine, I feel. There might be an arguement for a line of Mr. Sagan's criticism of the statement, though I personally feel it is irrelevent. Categorisation is all completely referenced (even protoscience, though I personally disagree), so other than the external link problem I highlight below I have no major deletion plans. Jefffire 08:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Siddharth introduced a number of unwarranted changes:

• "Also, critics contend that since the time the current practice of astrology was founded, the motion of the planets have changed due to precession, which is a change in orientation of the Earths axis. As a result of this, the sun-signs assigned to individuals based on their birth date do not reflect the actual constellation the sun is found in.": This is not only OR but also a complete misunderstanding of astrology. Please see tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac in order to gain a basic knowledge of zodiacs.
• "Another major criticism of astrology is that two different practitioners often make completely different predictions[44].": OR supported by unreliable source.
• "The scientific theory says that the results of a prediction should not depend on individual bias or opinion, whereas astrological predictions often depend on the practitioner.": OR and a lack of appreciation for the differences between hard and soft sciences.
• "When testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, studies of astrological "time twins", born minutes apart and presumably have the exact same planets in the same signs at the time of their birth, found no support for astrological predictions on similar personality or similarly timed events.[43][44][45]": A very bad reword, grammatically and factually incorrect.
• Deletion of Sagan quote: If the Humanist article is referenced within this section, then criticism of it must be presented as well.
• Replacement of specific theories by supposed mechanisms: Again a very bad reword attempting to dilute the sentence.
• Replacing "Many astrologers" with "One set of astrologers": Bad reword and factually incorrect (read the book).
• Addition of "despite the lack of experimental evidence": Factually incorrect (see Mars effect).
• Adding "gravity" as one proposed mechanism: This is not a notable reference, it just doesn't measure up to the other theories which were deleted.

In summary, all of these POV, OR, badly worded and factually incorrect changes should be reverted. Aquirata 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a pointwise response

• Agreed. After reading those links and more, I agree that this criticism should be removed.
• This is not OR. Do you want me to give references for examples? What makes this an unreliable source, but the other astrological sources you use reliable?
• It's not OR. It's a fact. The scientific thoery says that the result of an experiment or prediction should be same, no matter who performs it, and shouldn't have individual bias. Do you want me to reword that sentence and include references?
• It may be grammatically wrong, but it's factually correct. May I know what are the factual mistakes?
• I think that the Sagan quote, about authoritarianism, is irrelevant to the validity of the statement. In the same context, would it be OK to include Hawkings views on astrology?
• How does it dilute the sentence? I think it says the same thing!
• Read the link I gave for a counter-example. There are many astrolgers(see link) who do believe in causal theories. So, only one set of astrolgers beleive in acausal theories. Should I include more references, or reword that sentence?
• "despite the lack of experimental evidence" for causal theories, such as the proposed effect due to gravity. Should I reword that?
• Why is it not a notable reference? Some astrologers do believe in the effect of gravity, and it's a valid example. See the reference I gave. siddharth 11:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than going into a long-winded exchange on this now, I think we should first agree to revert to the version by BorgQueen 00:10, 23 June 2006. This version reflects consensus or close to it. Your changes are very controversial, so I'd say the starting point should be something that is mostly acceptable to all editors. Then you can propose your changes so we can discuss them one by one. How does that sound? Aquirata 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you think it's controversial, but let's wait for the views of more editors and see the consensus on this protected edition. If the consensus is to revert to the version by BorgQueen, that's fine by me. Since, this discussion seems to be in a deadlock, how about a request for comment on this article? siddharth 12:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way a consensus could develop on this version. A consensus (or near to it) existed before your changes. Then you came and effected major revisions without discussion. This by definition upsets the consensus. The only starting point possible (i.e. reflecting consensus) is before your changes. Aquirata 12:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, lookng at the discussion on this talk page, there was certainly not consensus before Siddharth's changes, and there certainly isn't consensus for the version before the changes (or after the changes) now. --Philosophus ^T 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's from someone who was not part of the discussions. Most contentious issues had been resolved by the time the admins arrived. The only remaining major issue as far as I know is the categorization of the article. A compromise solution has been proposed by Piper to include both categories.

Where do you see contention? Aquirata 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Philosophus is correct in saying that there was no consensus for the version before the change. While there were no major issues before my edit, I'll try stating a few of the minor issues.

• • The changing of "clear consensus"
  • Inclusion of non-scientific sources for astrological claims
  • removal of criticisms of the Mars Effect
  • the irrelevant Sagan comment on the humanist article
  • Failing to realise that astrology is a pseudoscience
  • Misinterpreating Sympathetic tone
  • Failing to realise the majority(scientific) view vs Minority view
  • The list of issues on which I made the edit.

siddharth 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sid, where were you when these issues were being discussed and worked through? Piper Almanac 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Piper, but while I see discussion, I don't see any resolution. Could you point out where they were resolved? siddharth 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to the version by BorgQueen 00:10, 23 June 2006. Siddharth and Philosophus are newcomers to this discussion (carried over from the now deleted "Objective Validity of Astrology") while the other editors are familiar with the arguments, discussions, and consensus opinions that have already been made. Siddharth has tried to reintroduce old POVs that have not survived this process, and has not discussed them with the other editors before stepping in with extensive changes. In the current version, Siddharth has misrepresented astrologers' views on "causal mechanism" and used an unreliable source, and has incorrectly worded the "time twins" study, which did NOT test for astrologically timed events (as well as adding unnecessary secondary sources). I agree that the article should revert to the version by BorgQueen. Discussion can proceed cautiously from there. Piper Almanac 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to these objections previously. siddharth 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on reverting to the BorgQueen version and start talking about contentious issues from that point on? Aquirata 09:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Wiki-info is not considered a suitable external link under the existing guidelines, namely guidelines two and three -

2 Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

3 In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

This is a link to a Wikipedia article which was deleted. It does not become suitable as an external link when it is removed from Wikipedia, if anything it becomes worse. It will be removed as soon as the protection drops. Jefffire 08:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS are you quoting from? Aquirata 10:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting from WP:External Links. Jefffire 10:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as WP:External Links. Please provide a proper reference. Aquirata 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links... Jefffire 10:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Regarding the two points mentioned:

1. Are you arguing that Wikinfo is an unreliable source?
2. Surely the OVA article provides much more detailed information than this article does. Or are you arguing for the inclusion of that material here?

I don't see support for the deletion of the link. Aquirata 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-info is most definitely not a reliable source. See here: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. The link does not belong. Marskell 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki, too, so (by your reasoning) an unreliable source. Aquirata 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the irony. I would only say: a) This particular wiki cannot speak for the content, processes etc. of other wikis. b) Wikipedia is an unreliable source (from the perspective of a university prof or a news organization, say). Anyhow, that's just my thoughts--the guideline says what it says. That actual language isn't used on V but I think if you went to talk there people would agree with RS. Marskell 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, if I recall correctly, but I can't remember where that is. --Philosophus ^T 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough case to exclude Wikinfo from external links. Marskell's point a) is arguing for accepting Wikinfo, and point b) is irrelevant in terms of WP. Philosophus' statement is unsupported. My take on this is that it's ludicrous to deem WP as an unreliable source by WP because the entire project should then be scrapped. Aquirata 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My A and B were just my thoughts, as I said. The wording on RS is unequivocal that wikis are not reliable sources. Now, this is guideline level so you may want to go to talk on WP:V. Marskell 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my point A isn't "arguing for accepting Wikinfo"--just the opposite. Marskell 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To take this further, Wikinfo is an online encyclopedia. It is not any less reliable then WP itself: "Wikinfo, formerly known as Internet-Encyclopedia (renamed in January 2004), is a fork of the English language Wikipedia initiated by Fred Bauder in July 2003." The expression 'fork' is explained as: "The term is also used more loosely to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are several forks of the English-language Wikipedia), particularly with free or open source software." So Wikinfo is considered a similar branching of Wikipedia. In other words, if WP articles are acceptable sources, then so are Wikinfo articles. Unless of course you can point me to an exact quote to the contrary. Aquirata 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

Wiki-info is NOT wikipedia, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not used as an external link, only an internal link. Jefffire 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, the mental torture on this talk page... Read the sentence posted to you twice. The language is absolutely clear. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikinfo are reliable sources; as far as the former goes, it's an irrelevant meta issue because Wikipedia articles do not link to each other as external sources. If you have further concerns bring it up here. Marskell 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So internal links can be unreliable but external ones cannot. Aquirata 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, basically. Marskell 21:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And more exactly (i.e. explicitly, as in WP policy or guideline)? Aquirata 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links states off the top that internal is preferable to external. You can find this elsewhere but I'm tired. That Wikipedia fails its own WP:V criteria is as obvious as looking at WP:V--WP:V exists because Wikipedia cannot verify its content (how could the wiki not fail its own verifiability criteria?). But this is really a meta question and you're not the first to think of it--go to Jimbo's talk, the policy content talk pages, the wiki village pump, IRC, whatever. You'll get responses somewhere. Marskell 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange way of looking at links, but it's not the first anomaly I come across here. Thanks for explaining. Aquirata 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the page is finally unblocked, I have taken the liberty of removing the offending link. Jefffire 12:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How to Get the Wiki-Astrology Page Back Online & Honest

As one of the few legitimate Astrologers on Wikipedia, I should be allowed to edit the Astrology pages, especially since there are so many unethical debunker administrators who continually harrass or delete honest input. Andrew Homer 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the best ways to get the Astrology Page back to good use was mentioned by Chris Brennan, who wisely thought that a Wiki-project on Astrology would help. I agree with Chris. Astrology is most likely the oldest, and best documented science in the history of humankind, leading to the invention of mathematics, medicine, and many other disciplines taken for granted by conventional science. Moreover, the history of astrology is also well-documented, even in the United States, where it must be remembered that it is an historical fact that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. not only practiced astrology, but used its principles to set, and then build Washington D.C., aligning the capital with the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo. The expert astrologers, and those with the knowledge base have worked hard, and seriously to improve the page; however, the arguments that seek to "debase" astrology from a POV has disrupted the Wiki-Astrology page based on the failure to not accept historical facts while promoting a "pseudo-science" viewpoint designed to blot out over 5,000 years of historical and scientific fact. A balance, with facts, surely can proceed, and Chris Brennan's idea of a project would help to combine diversifed views into cohesive subject matter that seeks to enlighten the mind, rather than to darken it. Welcoming views that seek to expand the knowledge base, rather than to shrink it through personal POV, is the best course. Theo

And I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for stating it so succinctly. Aquirata 16:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And I completely disagree with that. Your para is filled with some shocking errors, such as stating astrology is most likely the oldest, and best documented science in the history of humankind. After all that discussion, do you seriously agree with that Aquirata!? And do you really think that representing the majority(scientific) view as such is POV?siddharth 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Once you can embrace a not so narrow-minded definition of science that you are using now, you will also see the truth to Theo's quoted sentence. And the scientific point of view is a POV, yes. Please read WP:NPOV for an explanation. Aquirata 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth?? Amazing! I've lost faith, and think it's pointless working on this article. I'm out of here. siddharth 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, then - I guess it's pointless to answer your note below. Aquirata 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I always love the appeal to the ancients. Change the terms and you can use it to defend slavery. Marskell 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could, but that would indicate a complete disregard for the spiritual implications of astrology. Aquirata 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

used its principles to set, and then build Washington D.C., aligning the capital with the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo --> This is actually not true. The supposed "fact" was "discovered" by some enterprising conspiracists trying to claim that freemasonry was controlling the US Government and the proof was in the alignment of DC with Virgo. Unsubstantiated and idle speculation. --ScienceApologist 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ScienceApologist, but it is true. Suggest you check out Washington DC for yourself - the capital city of the USA contains the most publically set horoscopes of all the capitals of the world. Moreover, it is a known fact that the city itself was constructed and oriented (along with major monuments, including the White House) to the cluster of main stars in the constellation Virgo, which, by the way, can be seen with your own eyes at this time of year in Washington. Your statement, "by some enterprising conspiratists" according to you, must mean that you refer to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Bannacker, etc., as "conspiracists" because they used classical astrology for practical purposes? These are historical facts that cannot be denied ScienceApologist, and, no matter the POV, are well-known. Attempts to somehow "deny" the obvious is futile since these are historical and well-recorded facts. Your own "personal view" does not suffice to make it not so. For more, check out David Ovason's book - "The Secret Architection of our Nation's Capital" which should help you to see the facts of the matter.Theo

Bullshit. This is a clear example of crackpottery.

For the full text, refer this site [1]

In 1999, “The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital” was first published – oddly, considering the title, in Great Britain. Written by David Ovason, an astrologer whose other works included two books about Nostradamus (one of which trumpets his discovery of a secret language which had eluded all other researchers and the other, published AFTER the horrific events of September 11th, 2001 in New York claims to have now found a quatrain which foretold the event!). It’s also important, we feel, to remind readers that an astronomer is one who is trained in science to understand the heavens; an astrologer is one who, perhaps even self-taught, determines what a person’s life will be by the position of the constellations at the time of their birth – a fortune teller. None of Mr. Ovason's books reveal his education. Perhaps there's a reason?

When 'our little friends’ on the Internet became aware of this book’s title, they immediately began to shout that this was the final proof of all of Masonic conspiracy. Ignoring both the book's actual contents as well as the author's credentials (or lack thereof) they immediately began to create all sorts of fanciful theories. They trumpeted the ‘approval’ of Freemasonry as evidenced by the preface written by C. Fred Kleinknecht, 33°, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern (US) Scottish Rite Jurisdiction. If the ‘heir’ to Albert Pike would write an introduction to this book, this “proved” that Freemasons designed Washington, D.C.

Well, not quite! However before we proceed, it’s important to understand the significance of this claim that Masons designed Washington. On its face, it actually seems quite complimentary to the Fraternity and to many it would be met with a response of “So what?” Well, here's what: for those with over-developed imaginations, it’s a fearsome threat. To them, this ‘fact’ proves beyond any doubt their fears of a horrid Masonic conspiracy which – depending on the individual – may take a variety of forms. Some – ignoring the three hundred year experience of Freemasonry encouraging freedom – argue that it is now clear Freemasonry is hell-bent on world conquest: that the ‘signs’ implanted in the Washington street layout along with that eye in the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill are the final proof. (Good thing they figured it out in 2000 after a couple of hundred years, isn’t it?) 59.92.61.224 07:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

When did being demonstratably wrong ever stop an astrologer? Jefffire 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer: When did it ever stop with human beings in general?Theo

Reaching consensus

Citing WP:BB as an excuse for adding the Pseudoscience project banner to the Talk page without prior discussion when this kind of labelling is one of the sore points that got the Astrology page into protected state is not only insulting to other editors and the consensus process but also a demonstration of bad taste and possibly even bad faith. What is the purpose of such an addition? Will this banner facilitate reaching consensus? Will making changes without talking while others are making an attempt to reach consensus help this process?

Philosophus, you are mocking our honest efforts, and are quite effectively adding oil to the fire.

The addition was repeated by anonymous 59.92.94.151 (who turned out to be Siddharth) twice, which is, in a way, excusable (although we don't know for sure whether there is a relation to the admittedly alternate account of Philosophus), and now Marskell, which is another slap in the face. How can you possibly maintain a cooperative attitude while militantly insisting on upsetting the process? This time I am once again reminded of the "mob of pro-Wikipedia zealots and hype-pushers... of no particular qualifications" [2].

I will revert the addition of this banner once more and wait for all of you to act in good faith (which means talking it out first before rushing back in without discussion). Aquirata 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, there is a clear consensus that astrology is pseudoscience. I'm amazed that you don't see that, and persist in claiming consensus! By removing such additions, I believe it's you who are assuming bad faith and mocking honest efforts. Also, the anon ip was mine as I forgot to log on. siddharth 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, your interpretation of consensus seems like having the last word on a discussion siddharth 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. Please don't remove the additions of others. I cited being bold because the template is brand new and had not been used yet. Part of the reason I put it here is to find out what the reaction would be - I have tried to make it clear in the text that the WikiProject watches over articles that might contain pseudoscience, or that might attract pseudoscientific edits. Thus we also watch over pages like Zero point energy, which is mostly scientific. Apparently I haven't done a good enough job at this - could you tell me what you find wrong with the text? Thanks, Philosophus ^T 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus:

• You haven't addressed my concerns regarding the consensus process.
• You have put back your banner with full knowledge of it being highly contentious.
• You now know what the reaction is. Please remove the banner until we can agree on putting it back in.
• The description of the project ("This WikiProject is intended as a tool for presenting pseudoscience articles in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View rules, and for aiding in flagging articles that aren't Encyclopedic for removal.") doesn't match your 'might' qualifier.
• The term pseudoscience is pejorative and is being used as a debasing label. If you had a project on protoscience, fringe science or alternative bodies of knowledge, nobody would object. If you want to look for trouble on the other hand, keep using the pejorative term. History will show you that you were wrong just like it has already shown similarly insensitive people using the terms nigger, faggot, etc.
• The Talk page is the back door to the article for now. Acceptance of your banner on the Talk page will result in it being put on the article page eventually.
• The WikiProject watches over articles: In other words, it is policing these articles you deem suspect. No thanks.
• In summary, I think dreaming up this project was an extremely bad idea in the first place. Attempting to police the Astrology article in a coordinated manner by people adverse to and lacking knowledge of the subject is even worse. Please remove your banner and stop trying to force your POV on this page.

Aquirata 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the talk page is not the article. The banner will never be put in the article, since such banners are not put in articles.
• The WikiProject considers the article to be one of the articles that we work on, and the banner is just a statement of that fact. It is not a statement of support for any particular POV, besides the POV of supporting NPOV. In a way it is more there to encourage awareness of the project, just like the WikiProject Astrology banner. There are people here who would probably be interesting in contributing to each of the two projects.
• I've also asked for advice about this on IRC, but the only response I got were a few people telling me to delete *all* WikiProject banners *everywhere* in the article talk namespace, something which I certainly don't have time to do. --Philosophus ^T 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, I still don't see you addressing my concerns. Regarding the removal of the banner, if you had time for putting it in and re-adding it, you should certainly have time for removing it, too. Aquirata 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't understand my statement. The only response I got on IRC was the suggestion that I should remove every WikiProject banner of every WikiProject on talk pages of all articles in Wikipedia. I'm not a bot, and I don't think any human has time to do that. I apparently awoke sort of anti-banner sentiment, and you will probably see a proposal in a few days. --Philosophus ^T 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. --Chris Brennan 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, I understood your statement. In that spirit, what's preventing you from removing this one banner form this page? Aquirata 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would he do that? Harald88 09:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous points of consensus among editors in the Science and Astrology discussion (including the Objective Validity of Astrology page before this one). If you participated and you've been on this rollercoaster, you understand the consensus, even though to the causual observer it may look like arguing all the way. This article is a mix of volitile beliefs and ideas, but at the BorgQueen checkpoint it was at one of these wonderous points that were as near to consensus as this stuff gets. It was a remarkable achievement. Arguing that there is a "clear consensus" among scientists that astrology is pseudoscience is no more meaningful than the "clear consensus" among astrologers and most scholars that astrology is not science in the modern sense. Please respect efforts of those who have worked hard on this topic and try to contribute to the goal of consensus without undue provocation. Piper Almanac 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Piper. Aquirata 09:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page, for goodness sake, not an article. If a particular project has an interest in it then why remove the banner? Jefffire 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that arguing over things like this does have the feel of a faith argument. When I hear don't use "repugnant" sources, "insulting" banners etc. I'm left scratching my head a little because it seems to be personalizing a non-personal process—i.e., as if we're offending somebody's faith. Ultimately, that can't be the arbiter of what belongs. Philosophus has a project and he's added it to the page—that is his right. Whether project banners belong at all is a larger issue for the community to decide. Marskell 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Chris Brennan 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are stong beliefs on both sides. Up until this point there was a effort, made in relatively good faith, on the part of both sides to arrive at consensus. The work has been very difficult, but all have persisted. Knowledge has been exchanged, and the result was good. This pseudoscience banner however adds a strongly political slant that is not only unnecessary, but very harmful to this effort. It is a rally cry to attract would-be debunkers who, in their "non-personal" way, do not care to get involved in discussion or consensus. Indeed some are even insulted by the very thought of consensus. They see only a targeted group that has been labeled. Stereotyping and labeling is a highly charged political act. It breeds ignorance, contempt, irrationality, and isolation. It brings out the worst on both sides. Political labeling of any sort should not be condoned by scientists. Once this label was applied, the article was immediately butchered with unreliable sources and arguments that had already discussed and resolved long ago. Astrologers sensing the attack came out of the woodwork and jumped into the fray. All the editors need to agree that the goal is consensus, or this article is meaningless. Are there any dissenters to a goal of consensus? If not, then let's remove the label, at least the "WikiProject Pseudoscience" banner on this Talk page, and get on with the work. Piper Almanac 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Phil is busy with something else and cannot revert himself. It also seems there is strong opposition to the pseudoscience project banner. I have reinstated the state of the Talk page to the time of protection in order to facilitate reaching consensus. Aquirata 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like a sysop made some minor changes to the article. Why? Aquirata 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community". Thus, why do you think they did? Harald88 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed why, Harald? Don't keep us in suspense! Aquirata 20:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, When did you hear 'repugnant sources' in this debate? This is a false generalization. The pseudoscience banner is insulting to astrologers (which I am not), about one-third of Americans (in which group I also don't belong), and to the consensus process on this Talk page, to mention a few examples. It is not personally insulting. Please don't make assumptions about my personal feelings or faith. That could be taken as a personal attack. By your rationalizing and defending Phil's highly contentious action, I can start up a Pseudoreligion project and put that on every science Talk page. Or I can start up a Sh*theads project and put that on every personal Talk page. Or a Niggers project on black people's pages, or a Death to sects project on religious pages, etc. I fail to understand how you can condone such a position as it is also contradicting the spirit of WP:NPOV. Pseudoscience is not a neutral term and should not be used within WP apart from a historical or social perspective. It is not an appropriate name for categories or projects. Aquirata 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't object to the psuedoscience banner at this point, and I don't think that this argument about it is going to get anyone anywhere. While the term psudoscience may be used most often as a derogatory term at this point in time, it may still be a perfectly valid definition or categorization of astrology within the context of most of the definitions of modern science. Simply put- astrology by and large doesn't follow the scientific method except a small fraction of individuals that have done some scientific testing on astrology, but the vast majority of the techniques are derived theoretically and empirically with no attempt to validity them through "scientific" means, i.e. statistically, etc. Now, there may be perfectly reasonable arguments for the validity of astrology not being dependant on broad statistical verification such as the arguments put forward by Jung and Cornelius, but this still ultimately means that astrology isn't a "science" in the contemporary definition of the term. At this point in time I think that most astrologers would agree with this statement for the most part given the widespread adoption of acausal models of astrology by astrologers in the 20th century such as Jung's theory of synchronicity. If the vast majority of astrologers today have rejected the notion that the planets literally cause events to happen on earth, and possibly the applicability of the scientific method to astrology, then I'm not so sure how much of the astrological community is actually being represented here with these objections. --Chris Brennan 17:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you took a history of science course, you would know that scientists and engineers are continually inventing and refining their research tools and techniques. Rather than accusing Astrology of being a "psuedoscience" you should acknowledge Astrology for being the PRE-science that it is. Emperical observation finds that many (no, not all) astrological procedures work. It's not in the job description of us Astrologers to prove that Astrology is a science. But rather it's within the job description of the physical science researchers to improve the acumen of their research tools so as to discover why Astrology works. Andrew Homer 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, that you don't object to the usage of 'pseudoscience' is noted but not relevant in this context. The issue is that the term is a derogatory, non-NPOV label. Against the spirit of WP. Aquirata 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the term is derogatory, which I would agree that it is in a sense from the point of view of astrologers, is irrelevant because it is simply a categorization that astrology falls into from the contemporary scientific perspective. You cannot deny that astrology is essentially categorized as a psuedoscience by scientists in the modern world, and therefore you cannot reject this as a common categorization of astrology any more than you could reject the label of divination, or any other label that is commonly applied to astrology, whether rightly or wrongly from your perspective. On wikipedia the consensus position overrules the NPOV policy, and until you, Piper and whoever else get that and learn to work within the confines of it, you guys are going to continually be fighting these inane battles that you can't ultimately win and will end up doing more harm to your cause than good. The objective validity of astrology article is a perfect example of this. That was a perfectly good article, but you guys just kept pushing it and antagonizing the skeptics until the entire thing was deleted. Now the main astrology article itself is on lockdown because of the same sort of behavior. Come on guys. Stop arguing about trivial stuff, choose your battles wisely, and direct your energy towards the more important work that needs to be done. --Chris Brennan 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper used the adjective on the Objective validity page and it stuck in my mind. As for the rest of your rant I don't want to touch it except to say this: equating the use of pseudoscience here with the use of nigger is, um, repugnant. Marskell 10:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mars, "the rest of your rant" is a personal attack. Please try to address my points instead. Aquirata 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points have already been addressed, rant is a fairly accurate description of your comments, and you have no moral authority whatsoever on the topic of personal attacks. Jefffire 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Aquirata, but comparing the use of the term pseudoscience to the worst racial epithet in the English language is a rant if I've ever seen a rant. Your point was an attempt to disprove via analogy but only reinforced the difficulty here more strongly: calling astrology a pseudoscience is the same as calling a black person a nigger? What the hell are you thinking? Marskell 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it what Aquirata meant at all Markskell. For one, there is no proof whatsoever that the science of Astro-LOGY is a pseudoscience since the term itself is used in this debate, but, has no meaning at all to true astrology. How would you explain the fact that Classical Astrology, from it, came mathematics (algebra, geometry, trigonometry) and many applied sciences, as well as medicine? In your use of the word "pseudoscience," the above practices, must, by definition, also be termed pseudosciences as well. Perhaps your argument against astrology comes from a "pop-culture astrology" mindset - which is common among those who have not studied astrology itself. For instance, equating Astrology with "Astronomy" as an equal is not correct. Astronomers were never allowed to say, read the signs of the skies if they only worked solely as stellar cartographers, which is what an "astronomer" is - a stellar cartographer. The techniques of identifying celestial objects, marking positions, motions, declinations, etc., in Astrology is "astronomy" or what is known as stallar cartography. All classical astrologers had to train in this branch of astrology along with all of the others, which included medicine, theology, politics (mundane) natal, meteorology, and the general branches within what was known as "Natural Astrology." Astrologers were the ones trained, and able to expertly "read" celestial data from the combined collection of celestial phemenoma and then to make a "judgement" on the matters questioned. Those who claim that it is not possible to forecast the future, then in the same breath state that it is possible to say, forecast the weather in advance - are contradicting themselves. This is forecasting into the future. Astrology, for instance, invented what is called "meteorology" - forecasting the weather using astronomical data. The term "astronomy" is technical, and the suffix "nomy" means "to name." The term "logy" applied to "astro" is well known and has been with us since the dawn of humankind. For instance, you will find ancient solar/lunar and planetary observatories and their texts/books etc., all over the Earth; with such physical monuments such as ratio-replicas of say, Stonehedge, built by many cultures to monitor, observe and record celestial data.Theo

"In your use of the word "pseudoscience," the above practices [math etc.], must, by definition, also be termed pseudosciences as well." Another non-sequitur to add to the pile. Because bloodletting is a load of rubbish so too is modern surgery? No. That astronomy arose from astrology tells me nothing about the latter's efficiacy. If all astrology amounted to were to "observe and record celestial data" no one would have a problem with it—it's just that niggling bit about relating those observations to completely unrelated things.

As for forcasting the future (more precisely, making forecasts about the future) who said it's impossible? Many are forecasting another Brazil win in the World Cup. I suspect if it occurs it will have much to do with the talents of the team and little to do with the position of Pluto.

As for the etymological argument, please save it. If affixes accorded credibility we should all convert to Scientology (with a name like that, how can it be wrong?). Marskell 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, bloodletting was not the best example to use for your argument: "Phlebotomy is still practiced in hospitals, but modern techniques are used, and phlebotomy is considered to be a very specialised skill requiring specific training." So no, it wasn't a 'load of rubbish', but doctors needed experience to realize how it could be used beneficially. You might as well damn all previous efforts of science because most of the theories have been overturned by later research. An appreciation for history, process, experience, trial and error, etc, may be beneficial.

As for astrology, yes, it may turn out a few hundred years from now that all it contributed to scientific knowledge is the astronomical content. While research today seem to indicate otherwise, it will still be a long time before we know for sure. And there is a lot more in astrology than scientific content alone. Labelling it a pseudoscience while not appreciating its historical contributions reflects a narrow viewpoint indeed. Aquirata 11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That something is accidentally correct in a very narrow way doesn't validate it Aqu. "The practice, of unproven efficacy, has been abandoned for all except a few specific conditions as modern treatments proved or believed to be effective have been introduced." Largely rubbish as near as I can tell.

I have no problem giving a good historical overview of this or any other topic. I've never said otherwise. I was just responding to another "appeal to" error—the appeal to tradition. Marskell 11

17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysics research

WMAP satellite discovered tropical ecliptic (ie. astrologers' Zodiac), see: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353 with additional larger images at original announcement of obserwation results at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496. So something originally discovered indirectly through observing effects of cosmic influences on human lifes is now independently rediscovered with scientific instruments. 83.24.194.139 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read these papers now, thanks for bringing them to our attention. While the CMB anomalies are minor (micro-Kelvin range), they nevertheless form an intriguing pattern along the tropical zodiac. Fourfold and sixfold divisions are apparent, but higher multiples are not showing up as obviously. These two, however, are sufficiently correlated to the tropical signs. This is an interesting line of research, one that will no doubt bring major changes in current scientific attitudes towards astrology. Aquirata 10:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Aquirata. Theo

Marskell and Jefffire are noticeably silent on this topic. Thought you were interested in scientific research? Aquirata 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll chip in to say that this will have absolutely no effect on scientific attitudes to astrology. Micro-kelvin changes in background radiation will have all of zero influence on Earth. You are reading OR into this. Jefffire 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange Hypothesis

Here are some reflections on the past few months of work on this topic. Warning, it's a bit facetious, for your amusement.

Let's be skeptical for a moment. Let's say I won't accept astrology is a pseudoscience without evidence. This means I'll accept the hypothesis that astrology is pseudoscience. After all there are researchers trying to test this proposition right now. So the proposition of astrology as pseudoscience must be a hypothesis. If the astrology tests fail, then I will have the evidence I seek. Right?

There are two groups of researchers in astrology. First there are those who don't know much about astrology, so they design matching tests. These quick and dirty tests can easily accept an astrologically flimsy but scientific-sounding hypothesis. Lo and behold, the tests fail. The researchers in this group are the scientists. Failure has confirmed the scientific hypothesis.

Then there are the other researchers, who for one reason or another design a single-trait test. Some of them just blindly stumbled into it, but some, for example stock market researchers, are forced to go this route because there is a scarcity of matching tests for their area of interest. They take the pains to gather accurate test data and, weirdly, they find positive results. These researchers of are course not scientists, but are astrologers in the guise of scientists. Even the most unlikely people, like Professor Suitbert Ertel, becomes an astrologer. After all they found something and that's not supposed to happen. They can't be scientists anymore because their tests don't support the scientific hypothesis.

Who says this is a scientific hypothesis? Why, Nature of course! They only publish matching tests. Or at least they once published a matching test by that lucky undergrad, Dr. Shawn Carlson. Nature has never published a single-trait or single-feature astrological test. So there you go. Nature is the highest authority in the world and they know what they're doing because they do their peer reviews with only scientists, not astrologers. Why would they? Astrology is pseudoscience and there are "experts" in pseudoscience who say so. Astrology has been falsified time and time again by all those matching tests that failed.

What about the positive results for single traits? Didn't Popper say that all it takes is one disconfirmation to collapse an hypothesis? This problem has been neatly resolved by making those researchers non-scientists. They're not doing science, they're doing pseudoscience. The pseudoscience hypothesis says they'll get positive results.

Piper Almanac 01:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems kind of backwards to say that scientists test the hypothesis that astrology is a psuedoscience. Astrology only maintains such status in the scientific community because its methodology rarely follows the scientific method and because it has repeatedly failed various forms of scientific testing which have been conducted in order to determine its validity from a scientific perspective. The idea isn't to run tests to see if the subject is false, but to test the subject to see if certain areas of it are true. The hypothesis cannot be accepted in the total absence of corroborative evidence. Now, what constitutes legitimate corroborative evidence is somewhat open to interpretation in my opinion, but that’s a different issue. --Chris Brennan 06:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed backward, and your words seem to support this backward hypothesis: "it has repeatedly failed various forms of scientific testing which have been conducted in order to determine its validity from a scientific perspective." You are of course referring to matching tests that use weak hypotheses (based on some imagined type of astrology) that fail. However, if you look at the research with single-trait testing you will see a different story. Those tests are not so rare as you think and they do follow scientific method, starting with a valid hypothesis. Please refer to the links in the Astrology and Science topic for red hair, alcoholism, work-related injuries, marriage, earthquakes, birthdays and death, and the Moon and stock returns. Piper Almanac 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Who do you think that I am? I'm perfectly aware of the range of testing that has been done on astrology, and in certain cases I've been able to speak with those who have actually been involved in these tests such as Mark Urban-Lurain and Kenneth Irving. I'm perfectly aware of the scanty results that have come back in favor of astrology, and the overwhelming majority at this point that come out against it. As a matter of fact, I could never quite figure out why you were trying to push the red hair study because it’s considered to be kind of a joke in most astrological circles today. If you want to keep pushing these problematic or failed studies then that is your own prerogative, but it seems like you are simply 'beating a dead cat' here, or however that saying goes. I think that we could find much more productive things to do than to argue over these things here. --Chris Brennan 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, You are wrong (or more precisely, premature) in your assumption that results in favour of astrology have been scant, and against it overwhelming. The primary problems of testing astrology are 1) we're not quite sure what it is, and 2) strong interdisciplinary research is lacking. We first need a few enlightened people to formulate a plausible astrological model, and then some other open-minded, well-educated, spiritually inspired researchers with real funding to make this happen. Now these enlightened and inspired people only come once or twice a century, so I wouldn't expect huge results after perhaps a hundred years of haphazard effort. Currently we are just shooting arrows in the dark. Lo and behold, most of them miss the target. You (and many people) are interpreting this state of affairs as damning to astrology. This couldn't be further from the truth: the current state of affairs is only damning to our current level of understanding.

And by the way, if you are in touch with Urban-Lorain, why don't you ask him about his alcoholism study and follow-ups (or lack thereof) on it? This would make for a better article and shorter Talk page. Aquirata 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Chris. :) Aquirata 10:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Who says Mars and red hair is a joke? What makes you think this is a "problemetic failed study"? The oposite is the case. This study has gone through peer review, replication and found very similar results using international samples. Is there something about this process you find objectionable or cannot take seriously? Present your negative findings here in Talk and we'll all have a look. I've heard criticism of Percy Seymour's theories, but that is not empirical research, which we are talking about there. It seems to me you are making broad assumptions about astrological research. Piper Almanac 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that none of these "proofs" are published in mainstream journals. Even continental drift, which was once widely derided, got published in mainstream journals. What is Ertel and Urban-Lorain afraid of? Why not present their finding to a mainstream journal and have then opened up to the mainstream and subjected to a respectable standard of peer review? Continental drift did just that, and despite initial skepticism is now universaly accepted. Until these researchers have the gall to hold themselves up to the same standards as any other scientists, all of their "findings" will remain unrespected and derided. Jefffire 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream journals are not as open as you seem to think. Articles were submitted to them but turned down. Gauquelin was very frustrated over this. In the 1950s he waited for years for his Ph.D. dissertation to be approved, but it never was, so he was forced to publish. I recall that it was a great relief for him and the others to have found the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a serious peer-reviewed journal, which accepted articles. Not everyone has been as lucky as Wegener. Piper Almanac 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream journals are hard to get into if your methodology is dubious and your conclusions even more so. Other journals, such as Scientific Exploration, are not so careful, and so are not considered scientificaly reliable (how many citations do they get from Nature articles?). Failure to publish in a mainstream journal is most likely to be due to the article being rubbish. Jefffire 13:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your point of view, which doesn't agree with the facts. The bulk of the Mars effect discussion took place in JSE with full involvement by the skeptic side. How come they didn't publish their side of the story in Nature or Science? Aquirata 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because that is where the discussion was taking place? Why publish a rebuttal in Nature to an article which serious scientists don't give credence to? That would be a waste of time and finance, and would be viewed by many as lowering themselves. Jefffire 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Aquirata 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...thus rendering journals such as JSE scientifically worthless. Jefffire 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you have fallen prey to logical fallacy. Aquirata 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly for your position, Wikipedia also falls for this "logical fallacy". Ah well. Jefffire 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Points of contention

I am listing current points of contention in order for us to agree on them and get the astrology page back to non-protected status.

1. Starting point: It has been stated that the BorgQueen version of the page reflected more or less consensus, and so this should be the starting point of further discussions. This version also has the advantage of being contemporaneous with the admins stepping on stage, which by definition should automatically become the consensus version. However, not all editors have shown support for this position.
2. Categorization: Including the page in categories 'pseudoscience' and 'protoscience' have both been questioned. This was the only point of major disagreement at the time of the BorgQueen version. While personally I support the 'protoscience' category, the only possible consensus I see here is the removal of both.
3. Proposed changes: No strong opinions have been expressed here to my knowledge. We obviously will need to discuss changes proposed by Siddharth, possibly without his involvement.

Are there any other major disagreements on the page? If so, please list them here. Either way, please indicate your preference regarding the above so we can move forward towards reaching consensus. Aquirata 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the removal of category pseudoscience, for the numerous reasons list above. It is verified, it is relevent and it is accurate. Jefffire 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points above and disagree with the comment above. Pseudoscience with regard to astrology has not been "verified" since it is not a valid hypothesis, it is irrelevant because verification is in the results regardless of political stripe or labels, and it is inaccurate because there are numerous good tests of astrological hypotheses that have been scientifically verified. I would agree to 'protoscience' both historically and today. Astrology is the mother of many scientific and mathematical disciplines and continues to contribute to such areas as contemporary Jungian psychology. Lacking a theory in the modern scientific sense does not exclude it from scientific statistical study in the postmodern world. Piper Almanac 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I take it the first and third points are accepted by most editors active here. That leaves the categorization issue to resolve before the page can be unprotected. We have two squarely opposing views. Any proposals on how to achieve consensus on this? Aquirata 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone want to get back to editing the article? Looks like most prefer talking to action here. Aquirata 10:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection needs to stay for now. Judging from your responses in other sections you will immeadiately attempt to remove categories again. Jefffire 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins will decide how long protection is needed. The point is that all positions have to be articulated, and an attempt must be made to reach consensus. I have made several attempts but don't see Marskell or you doing the same. Aquirata 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (again)

Chris:

• "Pseudoscience... is simply a categorization": Well, no. It is a historcial and social fact, yes. So was the labelling of black people 'niggers' by ignorant whites for quite some time. Was it ever right? No. Was it a fact? Yes. But that doesn't make it right. There is a huge difference between a historical and social phenomenon, such as labelling astrology a 'pseudoscience' by those who are ignorant enough to bother looking into the facts and insensitive enough to not pay respect to other people's faith or opinion on one hand, and accepting that political act of labelling as right on the other.
• "On wikipedia the consensus position overrules the NPOV policy": Today this may be true. Tomorrow it may not be. And since it is blindingly obvious to anyone keeping an open mind that the current state of affairs is entirely unacceptable from the viewpoint of WP's mission, going silently with the consensus opinion on this matter is equivalent to endorsing the name-calling and labelling by political activists only mindful of their narrow and egotistical objectives, which usually translates to personal power and money.
• "Fighting these inane battles that you can't ultimately win and will end up doing more harm to your cause than good": I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. Progress is made or facilitated by those who are willing to fight the battles. The 'Astrology' article is way better now (i.e. at the BorgQueen checkpoint) than it was before these 'inane battles'. The 'Objective validity of astrology' article is an example of how politically motivated people resort to political means to their end when no rational argument is left to defend their position. The fruits of that work have not been lost as the article is now comfortably hosted on Wikinfo. The experience gained and lessons learned in that 'inane battle' will help us reap even more benefits in the future.
• "Stop arguing about trivial stuff": This may be trivial to you, which also explains why you don't get involved. It is not trivial to me as can be seen from the above. And it's probably not trivial to a few others, either. Otherwise, these 'inane battles' wouldn't be fought so persistently from either side.

So no, 'pseudoscience' will never be acceptable as a category for astrology (and a great many other things). Those who attack astrology from an uninformed viewpoint only prove that they cannot be 'skeptics' in the true sense of the word as that would imply taking a neutral position until things settle (think about that for a moment). So it follows that, by their own terminology, they can only be considered 'pseudoskeptics.' But since I am not of the ignorant and insensitive lot, I could never stand for categorizing these people as such on WP. Aquirata 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put Aquirata. Once a label like this has been applied, prejudice and authoritarianism get a grip, in this case masquerading as "skepticism". Piper Almanac 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So this is a crusade for civil rights now? The terrible prejudice of the National Science Federation and Richard Dawkins must be overcome? I find your continued racial analogy appalling (and it's odd that having jumped down my throat after the faith comment you are essentially confirming it).

We can verify that it is labelled pseudoscience by neutral, reliable sources. That is enough—the rest of it is just your OR interpretation of why it's not this but that. Marskell 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata-

• As far as the wider scientific community is concerned today, astrology is a psuedoscience partially owing to the fact that the unified causal model that was put forward by Ptolemy in the 2nd century and then followed after his time became obsolete by the 18th century, and since then there has been no viable new causal model that has been put forth to explain the 'astrological effect'. So, this issue is a lot broader than just the lack of scientific verification of the vast majority of horoscopic astrology. We cannot object to the psuedoscience project banner simply because we disagree with the term because then we ourselves are not being neutral, but we are just arguing against another point of view from the position that it is offensive to our belief system. In matters such as this it's not an issue of whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" but it is an issue of presenting both sides equally.

• "The fruits of that work have not been lost as the article is now comfortably hosted on Wikinfo."Yeah, the 'fruits of your work' on the validity of astrology article are great. Thanks for that one by the way. You guys really scored one for the astrological community there by getting it deleted and all. Is that your plan with the rest of the astrology articles as well? If so, then you guys are already doing a bang-up job on that.

• "This may be trivial to you, which also explains why you don't get involved": I don't get involved because I don't usually like to associate myself with zealots who would rather see what they are fighting for destroyed than compromise. Such an attitude smacks of a particular flavor of religious fundamentalism that I find distasteful. Also I just haven't found many of the arguments that you and Piper try to make to be particularly defensible, well presented, or even necessarily representative of the astrological community as a whole. Actually, I kind of wish that you guys would just give it a rest at some point so that some of the less partisan editors can get back to work on the article at hand. For some reason I doubt that that is going to happen though. --Chris Brennan 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell: Once again, you fail to address my points. No, it's not a crusade for civil rights. Yes, the racial analogy applies in a historical and social context; however, it doesn't appear that you can appreciate the bigger picture. The points have been well articulated so no need to repeat them. And please show me a single neutral, reliable reference to astrology being a pseudoscience. That's my million-dollar challenge to you or anyone else. Aquirata 21:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I bought The Demon Haunted World yesterday. Carl Sagan unambigously calls astrology a pseudoscience. Jefffire 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have one: the National Science Foundation. But wait. You're going to give me five hundred words about why the source is biased and/or not reliable. One way to put it is this: if a source calls astrology a pseudoscience by definition you will consider that source POV. But this is not deploying the content policies (in their entirety) properly—if it is verifiable and not OR it is acceptable.

And no, the racial analogy does not apply: not slightly, anywhere, in the ballpark, nothing. It's plain stupid—the stupidest argument you have deployed on this page. Perhaps you might take a note from Chris about shooting yourself in the foot. Marskell 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris,

• The Ptolemaic model is obsolete, but so are many other scientific models. Some survive longer than others. Astrologers have argued at least since Plotinus in the 3rd century (Are Stars Causes?) that astrology is non-causal.

(I disagree with this reading of Plotinus. He strongly argues against astrology, while maintaining some Peripatetic astral causality (cf 4.4). The 'stars are signs' line does not lead to any traditional astrology, certainly not horoscopic astrology, but is either purely omenic and without system or a nod to Plato's observations of the regularity of the heavens as a 'sign' of harmony in the universe. Zeusnoos 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Modern astrologers argue that there is no need to explain a causal "astrological effect" but that empirical observations can stand on their own, as happens with most verifiable statistics. Do we not trust our own observations, but need to have some causal "law" or other scientific doctrine to "support" it? There are two points of view and I believe at the Borg Queen checkpoint we had it fairly well presented from both sides equally.

• The fruits of the work have gone to Wikinfo and are no longer on Wikipedia. Why are you trying to blame this on the astrological community? The reverse is true. Who posted the article for deletion? Who tried to keep it and argued for working together? Who argued against keeping it? Who argued that a consensus for deletion has never been reached? Who argued that it had? Were you there at all? Don't you recall any of this? How quickly can history be rewritten!
• "Zealots who would rather see what they are fighting for destroyed than compromise." Please see the previous point. The so-called skeptics deliberately killed the article rather than compromise. Who are the zealots???

Piper Almanac 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific POV

Mars: How could the NSF be a neutral source? It represents the scientific viewpoint, which cannot be neutral. It is an acceptable source in WP, I agree, but it is non-neutral.

And by the way, invoking the "if a source calls astrology a pseudoscience by definition you will consider that source POV" clause would be more typical of Randi and company. No wonder you associated the one-million dollar challenge with this attitude! :) Aquirata 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"It represents the scientific viewpoint, which cannot be neutral." Dude, we have a category error here. The "scientific viewpoint" is central to how Wikipedia defines what neutral is and central to any modern western epistemological undertaking. If the scientific viewpoint cannot be taken as neutral here than literally nothing can. Marskell 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. You should be familiar with this quote:

"A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience." [3]

So scientific viewpoint = POV = non-NPOV. Aquirata 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes: "given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience." This is encouraging, as the page does top-to-bottom, presenting the full scientific view as fundamental to NPOV. But you don't want it "clearly, fully, and fairly explained" if you refuse to even categorize this page with a reliable scientific source staring at you. How you can read the pseudoscience section and declare "scientific viewpoint = POV = non-NPOV" is beyond me.

"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view."

The scientific viewpoint = majority viewpoint = NPOV. It's not saying that we don't explicitly need an SPOV because it's wrong, but because it's redundant and already implicit to what NPOV is. This has been well explained to you: here and here by Jayjg; here by Reaverdrop; here by myself. Marskell 09:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, Majority (<100%) viewpoint is not equivalent to NPOV. That would be giving undue weight (=100%) to that one opinion. The whole point of NPOV is to balance the arguments from all sides, giving corresponding weight to them. We report and do not judge. If those believing in Flat Earth outweigh those who do not, then that's the majority viewpoint and so it should be represented accordingly (with due weight). Aquirata 10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Circles and circles, huh? "Giving corresponding weight to them"--right, let's give corresponding weight to the majority scientific view and categorize this under pseudoscience. Marskell 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, How do you know that the scientific POV is majority opinion? According to the polls cited by NSF, one-third of Americans believe in astrology. Do you think more than one-third of adults in America are scientists? (Putting aside the issue of how good either side's understanding of astrology is for a moment.) Aquirata 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this that I've posted to you above. Marskell 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, Are you in support of Jayjg's post to Iantresman that you quoted? Does that mean that, as far as WP is concerned, the majority view (in your opinion) is the POV most published by reliable sources? Aquirata 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that to speak of a viewpoint per se you most be speaking of reliable sources. This goes to the heart of a vital point: "because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". To decide what is NPOV you must rely on what is at once verifiable and not original research. Marskell 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I finally understand why you think SciPOV = NPOV. By virtue of volume, science speaks louder than the rest about science. And disciplines labelled 'pseudoscience' by science don't get published in what science deems reputable sources. So science preserves its own majority by making and interpreting the rules at the same time. I also understand now why you and your friend are so fervent in applying the pseudoscience label. By making sure it is the scientific wheel that squeaks, WP has no other choice but to apply oil to it. So by 'consensus' (i.e. 'majority' in WP parlance) opinion, NPOV becomes SciPOV by default. Nice scheme. Kind of like dictatorships, tax laws and religious authorities. Aquirata 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see here, particularly the first paragraph, where I already unpacked this. I'm surprised you find this a new description. And it's not simply a matter of volume (diet books, religious tracts, and pornography all out-sell Nature and the like). Marskell 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Any policies or guidelines you could quote to support this position? Aquirata 10:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you are being deliberately dense. Your points have all been addressed. Jefffire 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack in place of a constructive effort to work together. Aquirata 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but a statement about how I now view the situation. The policies have been explained to you, repeatedly. The references have been shown to you, repeatedly. I no longer think you have any rational points, but are resorting to faith based positions and ignoring other Wikipedian when they prove your points wrong. Read over the talk page, all of you points have been countered, but you continue to beat a dead horse. Jefffire 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded. No policies were quoted to support the position presented (i.e. SciPOV = NPOV). All I saw were a few example posts to this effect, i.e. just opinions of editors. I highly doubt you could find a single authoritative source within WP that explicitly states your wishful thinking. Aquirata 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't what is being argued. The category is verified from reliable sources. Your believe that scientific sources are not reliable is yours, and is not Wikipedia policy. If you a problem with that, then take it to WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NPOV. You will never make anyheadway in this campaign on this page since your proposals involve a significant reinterpratation of how the policies are currently utilised, so continueing here is a waste of time and effort for all involved. Jefffire 11:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the discussion and misrepresenting my views. This thread started with the following:

• Marskell: "We can verify that it [astrology] is labelled pseudoscience by neutral, reliable sources."
• Aquirata: "Please show me a single neutral, reliable reference to astrology being a pseudoscience."
• Marskell: "You have one: the National Science Foundation."

And it continued from there on, arguing whether SciPOV = NPOV (which is Marskell's position). Moreover, I never said that scientific sources were unreliable. I said they could not be considered neutral. Next time you jump into a discussion like this, please be more careful with your assumptions. Aquirata 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's your position then you are doing a poor job presenting it. We have shown you the NSF, Carl Sagan, Steven Hawkins, and many others. They are considered reliable sources, they are verified and they are neutral. It is your opinion that they are POV, which you do not verify with reliable sources. Your objection is OR. Jefffire 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the issue. I am not questioning whether you can quote reliable sources stating that astrology is pseudoscience. I am questioning that you can find a neutral source to do the same. My opinion is that the scientific viewpoint cannot be considered neutral. Marskell disagrees (as obviously you do, too). His position is that SciPOV = NPOV. I am asking for a WP policy to state that explicitly. Aquirata 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are making the assumption that anything a scientist says is "scientific POV" and non-neutral. You offer no evidence for this assertion, other than your assertation that anything the likes of such experts as Steven Hawkins, Phil Plait and Carl Sagan say cannot be regarded as neutral. Rather than continue this here, where you are obviously making no progress, why not take it to the WP:NPOV talk page? Jefffire 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the assumption was made by Marskell (followed by you) that scientific opinion is NOT scientific POV but represents NPOV. This is quite a leap of faith. I know of no evidence to support this on WP, and have asked Marskell to provide a reference to WP policy regarding his assumption. I can certainly take this to WP:NPOV Talk, but in the meantime I will have to assume that the SciPOV = NPOV assumption cannot be supported. Aquirata 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

May I assume Aqu that all of the posts that have been made to you by long-term editors on the NPOV talk, some of which I have linked above, mean nothing to you? If a half-dozen people explain "this is how we interpret NPOV" that's neither here nor there as far as you are concerned?

To re-state one point that you seem to be ignoring: "science" is not a viewpoint so much as a methodology which accords with our content policies. The fundamental point is peer review or (with newspapers) editorial oversight. As I have stated, if Nature did see fit to include info buttressing astrology, by all means we could use the source. Marskell 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, perhaps Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus means something to you... Then again, perhaps you'll find some means to dismiss it. Marskell 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy

Chris: How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century? Perhaps I'm ignorant of history but am not aware of any such fact. I have no problem with presenting a scientific viewpoint of astrology, but take exception to categorizing astrology as pseudoscience. Not because it personally offends me (as I have explained a few times before), but most importantly, in the context of WP, because it is a non-neutral term. No need to resort to personal attacks and insinuations with respect to the OVA article. If you can only think in terms of cause-and-effect, then this will bias your judgment. You may wish us away from this article, but the simple fact is that only constructive effort will take this matter further. Just like you are stuck with us, we are stuck with you and others on this page. So what? We have no other choice than to work through our difficulties. Which is why I started the 'Points of contention' section. Posts within have been scarce so far, so it may take some time to dig ourselves out of this hole. Aquirata 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century?" Is this a joke? Surely you know what I mean when I refer to Ptolemy's causal model of astrology? --Chris Brennan 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. --Chris Brennan 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Ahem yourself. Please answer my question before asking one from me. Aquirata 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Way to sidestep responsibility for making a stupid statement Aquirata. --Chris Brennan 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Not at all. Can you please answer my question: How did Ptolemy's model become obsolete by the 18th century? If you cannot, I'll have to assume your statement ("the unified causal model that was put forward by Ptolemy in the 2nd century and then followed after his time became obsolete by the 18th century") was in error. Aquirata 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper, would you please talk some sense into this guy? --Chris Brennan 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Can you not recognize a genuine inquiry when you see one? Why are you sidestepping rather than answering the question? Aquirata 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This sophistry is getting ridiculous. Ok, here. To make a long story short, in Ptolemy's model where he adapted Aristotelian natural philosophy to astrology and astronomy the Earth lies at the center of the universe and there is a series of concentric crystalline spheres which the planets revolve on, while also moving in their epicycles in order to explain the phenomena of retrogradation. His explanation for astrology was that the planets themselves literally cause change in the sublunar world by being productive of certain properties of heat and moisture which are transmitted to the four elements thus effecting the animate and inanimate objects composed of these elements in the sublunar world. The planets don't signify, act as omens, or simply correlate with anything, they literally cause the elements and the weather to change which is supposed to affect everything on Earth. Jupiter isn't an omen or representative of some sort of archetype in this system, it is literally productive of heat and slightly of moisture:

"The star of Zeus has an active [part] of its power that is temperate, between (as is also the case with its motion) what is cooling in accordance with Kronos and what is burning in accordance with Ares; for, it warms and moistens at the same time, and because its warming [part] is the greater beneath the underlying spheres, it becomes productive of fertile winds." (trans. Schmidt, 1994)

You said "How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century? Perhaps I'm ignorant of history but am not aware of any such fact." Seriously? I mean, come on man. --Chris Brennan 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, we need to differentiate Ptolemy's astrological model in the strict sense from Aritotelian cosmology (which was also part of his wider model). Are you saying that, what became invalid by the 18th century was 1) Ptolemy's idea of physical casue-and-effect in astrology, or 2) Aristotle's cosmology? Aquirata 21:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Both to some extent, although we are speaking specifically about Ptolemy's causal model of astrology. Ptolemy adapted the Aristotelian cosmological model to astrology and based his causal model of astrology largely upon it. It was not long after that cosmological model went down the tube that Ptolemy's causal model of astrology started to be recognized as defunct as well, although the two are not entirely reliant upon one another. His causal model did linger on a bit, for example in the work of Kepler, but it is a completely absurd notion at this point in time. You would be the only astrologer that I have ever met who would even entertain the idea of Ptolemy's causal model as still being viable in this day and age. --Chris Brennan 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Aristotelian cosmology was replaced by the Copernican one as a simpler and better explanation, but that didn't happen in the 18th century. On the other hand, a causal model of astrology has never become obsolete to my knowledge. If you don't take Ptolemy's text quite so literally and allow for historical context, he might as well have spoken of electromagnetic radiation when using 'heat' and 'moisture' in his descriptions. This is exactly what Dr Seymour proposes. That he relied on the best available cosmological model at the time which became obsolote by now is a fact, but that doesn't diminish his other ideas. The four elements are very noticebale in people in the form of temperament - even today. Aquirata 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha. --Chris Brennan 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're on record that Copernicus replaced Aristotle? LOL. Marskell 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. :) Aquirata 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle's concept of causes is different than what is accepted today in science. One could say that to modern science, with the exception of "efficient cause," they are "obsolete". Ptolemy adapted astrology to the Aristotelian philosophy, as distinct from the earlier models of Babylonian omens and correlations. This Aristotelian view became "obsolete" much sooner than you might think. By the third century Plotinus (Are the Stars Causes?) argued, in agreement with his contemporaries, that the planets are "indicators" and not the direct cause of all that happens. This was long before Copernicus or Kepler and the 18th century. I'd be surprized if Kepler was Aristotelian in this regard, if you can provide a citation. I believe, that for most of its considerable history astrologers have been confortable with empirical observation without the notion of causality. It is modern scientists who seem to care about this, not astrologers. Piper Almanac 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, based on the above statement, I kind of doubt that you have read enough astrological texts from the time period that we are talking about in order to be able to really substantiate your claims about the views of astrologers regarding causality. Those who have, namely most historians of astrology, don't really seem to share your opinion here. Plotinus is irrelevant if the vast majority of astrologers are following Ptolemy in his techniques and his rationale all the way until the end of the Renaissance. We can even test this. You get together all of the quotes from astrologers during that time period who are citing Plotinus, and I will get together quotes from all of those who are citing and drawing on Ptolemy, and we will see who comes out with more in the end. It would, hypothetically, be a pretty open and shut case if you were right. Sadly, you would be hard pressed to find such widespread citations to back up your assertions. Here is the 'surprising' quote from Kepler the you requested by the way:

Our deduction of the various actions, number and strength of the planets is different from, but not at odds with, Aristotle's [method of deducing] his four elements from the four qualities. All variation is due to contriety, the first variation being due to the first contriety [and so on]. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle, wishing to philosophize on a higher and more general level than geometry, accepted as the first contriety that which exists between the same and the other. To me it seems that diversity in things is created from nowhere other than matter, or from occasions caused by matter, and where there is matter there is geometry. Thus, what Aristotle called the first contriety is without any middle [element], and in such a way that while other was to Aristotle one term, we break it up into more or less, i. e., two terms. Now, since geometry has offered an example to the creation of the whole world, this geometrical contriety is not improperly concurring in the decoration of the world which consists in the diverse forces of the planets. ... Consequently, they [the stars] impart to us qualities of an instrumental character, namely two- according to the number of two natural things, to wit: - (1) moistening power in order to render matter manageable; (2) heating power to support life and motion. (Kepler, Concerning the More Certain Fundamentals of Astrology, ISBN 0916411680, Thesis 20, 21)

Shocking, right Piper? --Chris Brennan 23:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, Wouldn't you say that classical astrologers still subscribe to the heat-moisture-elements idea albeit perhaps not literally and explicitly but as a theoretical basis for the qualities of planets, rulerships, friendships and enmities, temperaments, etc? Aquirata 07:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I disagree. Kepler in this quote is not discussing causality. He describes how the planets "impart to us" or inform us of the instrumental characters of the planets, which are embodied in matter. These embodied instruments are identified with forces, such as moistening power and heating power. The central Hellenistic hypothesis is that celestial events are expressions of the inner workings of the cosmic soul. Ptolemy was tremendously influential in the scientific and mathematical community, but practicing astrologers carried on a tradition grounded in divination, more typified by Vettius Valens and this is where the discussion of Plotinus, which questions the authority of Ptolemy, likely comes from. Piper Almanac 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Schmidt's hypothesis about the original conceptualization of Hellenistic astrology as I live and work with him at Project Hindsight. However, your opinions on Kepler and on the practice of astrologers after Ptolemy are largely unsupported by contemporary research that has been done both by those in the astrological community and those in the academic community over the past 20 years or so. I suspect that the reason for this is that, as in the case with Kepler, you simply haven't read the works of these authors and you are just making assumptions about their positions and about the history of astrology in general. That makes for a pretty boring discussion, and I'm kind of done with it at this point. I just wanted to get the astrology article unblocked so that I could resume editing of it, but it appears like that isn't going to happen anytime soon since you guys keep stonewalling this entire process because both of you are always right and the rest of the world is always wrong. That is a shame. --Chris Brennan 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just offering food for thought. What do you propose to get the article unblocked? Piper Almanac 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The first step would be for you two to stop insisting that the psuedoscience banner and categorization must be removed. I don't like that classification any more than you guys, and I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a necessary label at this point in time in our society. Maybe someone will change that one day, I don't know. But at this point we need to accept that astrology is a fringe study that does not have widespread currency in scientific and academic circles and we need to act accordingly here on Wikipedia. Personally, I think that we should be directing our energy towards building up the astrology articles on Wikipedia and raising the standard of research in them so that people will actually get a better idea of what astrology is and all of the technical, theoretical and philosophical complexities underlying the subject. If you really want to get rid of the stigma of psuedoscience attached to astrology then you have to start from the ground up by educating astrologers so that perhaps they will be able to redeem the subject in the public eye one day. Simply trying to get rid of the psuedoscience label would only be a temporary cosmetic solution that really does nothing to address the deeper problems. So yeah, lets just let that one go and move on to more important things. --Chris Brennan 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting the page unblocked

Can we agree to revert the article revert to the BorgQueen checkpoint [4]? This version lists the category Pseudoscience and mentions pseudoscience in the Astrology and Science topic. It also lists the category Protoscience. Can we also agree to keep the Pseudoscience Project banner off the Talk page? This banner seems to have opened the page to an assault by contributors with less knowledge of astrology or the history of the discussion. Piper Almanac 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see why, or how, we could allow the astrology page to be placed in the psuedoscience category and then reject the banner for the psuedoscience project. I mean, I understand why you want to get rid of it, but... I'm just not sure that this is an area where a compromise can be reached. Astrology is one of the subjects that that particular Wikiproject will focus on, so I'm not sure that we should have much say in whether or not they should be able to put their banner on the talk page here, anymore than we can tell them what subjects they can and cannot address with their wikiproject. --Chris Brennan 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct that BorgQueen version is just a revert of an anon and we are in fact speaking of the Piper Almanac version? I don't like "there is a commonly held belief" for the line introducing on science and prefer the current wording. I also believe that in that section a summation of scientific opinion should come first. Marskell 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What we have now is a mess resulting, I believe, from the Pseudoscience Project. After about 15 minutes of this, the page was frozen. What we now have in Astrology and Science is a "set" of astrologers believing no causality, properly sourced (undamaged as yet), and other astrologers believing a gravity mechanism ("despite the lack of experimental evidence"), which cites a skeptic source and a very unreliable web page (which I didn't bother to read) replete with annoying banners and popups. This is not the way to go. Marskell, please do a rewrite of the opening here on Talk, with the science summation first. We'll need a real consensus this time to get unfrozen. Piper Almanac 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the attitude of Marskell and Jefffire with respect to the astrological articles very disappointing (not that they will care about my opinion):

• They had decided to kill the 'Objective validity of astrology' article after having realised that they stood no chance of pushing their pseudoscientific POV onto other editors. Of course, killing the 'Astrology' article is beyond reason, so all they can try to do here is carrying over the attitude demonstrated with the OVA article.
• They refuse to acknowledge that the BrogQueen version represented more or less a common perspective albeit still not perfect. They also refuse to acknowledge that this same version was the one when the admins got involved following Jefffire's 3RR violation. They refuse to concede that changes by Siddharth were done after the fact but snuck through due to inefficiency on the part of admins to block the page.
• They refuse to admit that the 'pseudoscience' category violates WP:NPOV, and continue to push both the category and the project banner.
• They continue to believe (and push) that scientific opinion equals the neutral point of view, which is directly contradicting WP:NPOV.
• They refuse to acknowledge the over 100 years of scientific research into astrology, and refuse to concede that some positive results have been attained despite crude astrological methods.
• They continue to ignore other editors' viewpoints and make major changes to articles without discussing them first. When rationale for the change is asked for, it is either insufficient, against policies and guidelines, or simply not given.
• They have been asked several times now to cooperate with other editors and collaborate on the article, but these requests were either ignored, siderailed or refused.

This attitude is not conducive to cooperation and collaboration, will not facilitate the writing of better articles, and is essentially blocking progress on the present article in my view. Aquirata 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Piper, the freeze on the article is not a result of the Psuedoscience Project banner. It is completely and utterly a result of you and Aquirata's ridiculous behavior on this page in trying to cram your beliefs down everyone's throat. When you actually have other astrologers dissenting from the way that you are doing things one would think that you guys might attempt to reevaluate how you are approaching this, but you don't because that’s not what you two care about. All you guys care about is pushing your own agenda here, regardless of if anyone else agrees with it, astrologers and skeptics alike. The rest of us might as well take a vacation from this page at this point because these two have no intention of compromising one bit. --Chris Brennan 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not an astrologer, how many times do I have to say this? William Lilly, one of the greatest astrologers of all time, called himself a 'student in astrology.' You call yourself an astrologer at age 21, after having studied astrology for 5 years. 'Nuff said about that.

Let's also make clear that there are no skeptics editing this article. A true skeptic would never stand up for scientism. Aquirata 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And to be clear about one thing: the community "killed" OVA, not me or Jeffire. Please cease the insinuations that there was something under-handed involved. You may recall some of the comments: "an embarrassment," "irredeemably POV," "bloody awful," "very POV and blatantly violates WP:NPOV#pseudoscience," "a disgraceful POV fork" amongst others.

As for the rest of it, I'm yawning. It's all explained over and over and over again. Marskell 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the community of WPns who absolutely had no clue about what astrology is, let alone the objective validity of it? Perhaps you don't remember who started the AfD without any discussion and a misleading statement? Perhaps you don't remember that the admin's justification for deletion was taking the POV comments at face value? Who are you fooling?

As for the rest of it, I'm glad you confirmed my view about your attitude. Aquirata 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Aqu, what "misleading statement"? My opinion? My opinion was my opinion. I sometimes struggle here because you tell me to familiarize myself with community stuff that I'm already familiar with. You don't need to have a discussion to start an AfD. As I stated a long time ago, it's a actually an oxymoron to have a discussion about whether you should have a discussion to delete something--any Wikipedian has recourse to AfD (which is a discussion). You think the WPns were uninformed? Well that just sucks, but that is the Wiki. I have been a minority of one before (honestly) and gnashed my teeth and growled in edit summaries, but...but so it goes. We have spaces for the community voice because we need them. If nothing else, I want this insinuation that I did something wrong with the AfD to cease. I took it there because it violated all of our content policies. Others concurred.

My "as for the rest of it" referred to the NPOV discussion above. You haven't responded to the fact that RS has a headline entitled "cite peer-reviewed scientific sources..." Perhaps you'd like to. Marskell 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, Are you categorizing astrology under "8.2 Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" now? Because that's where the subsection you quoted is within WP:RS. Should we give up on classifying astrology under pseudoscience? Is that your point?

The AfD (Articles for Deletion) process is not simply a discussion. It is a request to delete an article pending discussion. Bringing up the subject on the Talk page is a totally different ballgame. There is even a subsection within WP:AFD discussing what you should do before nominating a page for deletion [5]. Steps include:

• Consider adding a tag such as

{{cleanup}}

or

{{disputed}}

instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.

• Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted.
• Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted.
• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility, and assume good faith before making a comment or recommendation.
• Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template.

That's on the subject of steps you could have taken before rushing into an AfD. Regarding your misleading comment, the OVA Talk page is not available any longer. However, this is what you stated after starting the AfD (and this has been quoted to you before):

• "Per JzG's concerns over the necessity of this, I have started an AfD. There is, of course, a very good chance of keep, but this is one of the best ways to find out what community thinks of the info we're presenting."

This is direct contrast to the description on the AfD page:

• "Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete."

In my view, this was a successful hijack attempt under the guise of seeking community input. In hindsight, it is obvious that the problems you were trying to get rid of have simply shifted to the main Astrology page. On the positive side, you also warned us about imminent deletion so we could make copies of the page - thanks for that. Aquirata 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read what might be done before an AfD, thanks. How long had the article already been tagged? How much time had already been wasted on discussion? Was it a hopeless case? I thought so and the page was getting worse because you and Piper were determined to use it as a platform for every possible statistic you could find supporting astrology (statistics which, interestingly, Chris has called dubious) and synthesizing them to produce OR. I misled no one. That's the last thing I'm going to say about this accusatory bullshit.

Do I wish to categorize astrology under "physical sciences, mathematics and medicine"? I posted that because:

a) I wanted to reiterate that our content policies rely on a scientific sources (again, as a methodology as much as a viewpoint) which you seem unable to accept.

b) Insofar as this page makes any mathematical/statistical or physical science claims at all, scientific publications have primacy in how we cite, categorize etc. Put it this way: if we were to declaim any recourse to a scientific methodology for the astrology citations like the Mars effect and truly, actually, and only describe this as a faith, then the pseudoscience label would be unnecessary. But you can't have your cake and eat it: suggest that astrology may have a scientific basis on the one hand, and reject the majority scientific label on the other. Marskell 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this?

I've been listening and have tried to work through all the pain points from Talk that I can think of. I've tried to choose the words carefully to avoid misrepresentation, which is where the problems start. Piper Almanac 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology and science

Within the contemporary scientific community, it is commonly believed that astrology lacks a relationship to science and the discipline is generally labelled a pseudoscience . Astrology has been criticized both by scientific bodies and individual scientists . In 1975, the American Humanist Association, which advocates humanism, published one of the best known criticisms of astrology, characterising those who continue to have faith as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary." As many as one-third of Americans believe in astrology, raising concerns by some people within the scientific community over scientific illiteracy.

Few astrologers today believe that modern science can provide a causal relationship between heavenly bodies and earthly events. However, a number of researchers have called for empirical studies based on statistics. Many astrologers have posited acausal purely correlative relationships between astrological observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Jung. Others have posited a basis in divination. Still others have argued that empirical correlations can stand on their own epistemologically and do not need to support any theory or mechanism.

Several individuals, most notably French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin, claimed to have found correlation, but not causation, between some planetary positions and certain traits such as vocations. Gauquelin's most frequently cited case is known as the Mars effect, which correlates the diurnal position of Mars at birth with eminence in sports. Since its original publication in 1955 the Mars effect has been subject to numerous studies claiming either to replicate or refute it. Gauquelin also claimed an astrological correlation of the diurnal position of Saturn at birth to eminence among French physicians (the Saturn effect). In 1988 and 1996, German Professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel published the most recent claim for a Mars effect, with evidence suggesting that it increased in proportion to the eminence of the athletes.

Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found statistical correlations in various other single-trait or single-factor samples, for example, red hair, alcoholism, work-related injuries, marriage, earthquakes, birthdays and death, and the Moon and stock returns. Although these latter findings have been received with interest within the astrological community, they have not gained recognition or acceptance within the mainstream scientific community. Few astrological research projects have been put through the rigors of the scientific peer-review process.

Critics contend that where tested against personality tests, modern western astrologers have shown a consistent lack of predictive power against these tests. Disproof is made more difficult because astrology does not claim correlation to personality tests and individuals' views of themselves (as reported in personality tests) may be flawed. When testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of astrological "time twins" found no support for the hypothesis that two people born at nearly the same time and place would necessarily have similar outcomes in behavior, although astrological timing in the subjects' lives was not tested.

Supporters of astrology argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results. Tests of astrology by its critics has sometimes taken the form of debunking campaigns or contests with offers of prize money.

Skeptics of astrology also suggest that the perceived accuracy of astrological predictions and descriptions of one's personality can be accounted for by the fact that we tend to exaggerate positive 'hits' and overlook whatever does not really fit, especially when vague language is used (see Forer effect).

Comment

I do prefer the current "Within the contemporary scientific community, it is commonly believed that astrology..." (I don't even know if commonly is really necessary). Otherwise it's fine (at least to get the article unlocked).

Re the categorization, my opinion is plain on pseudoscience. I don't have a great problem with protoscience but we should see some sources so that it's not just an OR interpretation of which cat belongs.

Chris, why don't you give us an opinion on which of the astrological sources are relevant of the one's used here? Marskell 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to see the references in some of the footnotes so that I can check out a couple of things. I could give a more complete breakdown of it if someone could insert those into the talk page. I would say that we are making progress, but there is still some stuff that needs to be thrown out, and some other stuff that needs to be rewritten a bit. It still reads like a back and fourth argument like the validity of astrology article did towards the end. The fourth paragraph needs to be dropped completely, and I'm still kind of perplexed as to why these guys are trying to point out some of these studies, such as the alcoholism study. The guy that did that study, Mark Urban-Lurain, has pubicly stated, and just repeated recently on this astrology forum that Aquirata and Piper go to that:

"A common misunderstanding of my results is that I “found” signatures for alcoholism. This is NOT true. The multivariate tests were much better at discriminating between the AA members and the control than were the univariate tests. However, the study did not identify “alcoholism” factors that can be generalized. The statistical reasons for this are beyond this conversation."[6]

Yet it is still included here for some reason. It is a similar story with the rest of "statistical correlations" that "astrological researchers" have "found" which are listed in this paragraph. There is essentially no good reason for that paragraph to be in there. There is other stuff, but I will save it for after I see the footnotes. --Chris Brennan 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, You may be an expert on history (although you still have to come clean on your statement about Ptolemy), but I doubt that you appreciate the deeper issues of scientific research. As Piper has pointed out, Mark U-L did find statistical correlation between celestial positions and earthly alcoholics. What he is saying is that he didn't identify the exact signature for alcoholics. So while the patterns he found can be used to identify potential alcoholics, it was by no means an exhaustive study. This is kind of like saying that house numbers on a street will be in increasing order most of the time (i.e. there is a correlation between distance and numbers), but, lacking a GPS device or actually surveying the area (i.e. without exact signature), one can only guess where a certain number will be. The guess will have some significance due to the correlation identified.

Regarding quotes, Mark also stated this within the same post:

"In 1983, Geoffrey Dean sponsored an “astrological superprize” competition to provide “evidence that the accuracy of chart interpretations cannot be explained by non-astrological factors.” The contest specified that “the charts must be of ordinary people typical of those who visit astrologer.” I submitted this work [i.e. the alcoholism study] and, after almost two years, it was judged/reviewed by Hans Eysenck, David Nias and Ivan Kelly, academics that were certainly qualified to understand it. The judges all agreed that the study showed the power of multivariate analyses over univariate techniques. However, they felt that AA members were not typical of those who visit astrologers. No “grand prize” was awarded in this competition, but I did receive one of the awards that were given for “excellence of design.”"

So again, materialist cynics (posing as skeptics) will be quick to point out that no grand prize was awarded hence astrology is pseudoscience. Yet if you understand the issues, it will be clear that U-L's work has been judged very highly by those capable of making a judgment, providing further support for the hypothesis that there is correlation between celestial and earthly phenomena unaccounted for by modern science.

He goes on to comment on why the study hasn't been replicated, and there are also a number of other significant comments on research into astrology in general. A good reading overall.

So yes, this study is important. Aquirata 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording is fine.

I disagree with switching the order of paragraphs as no reasonable description of anything can start with criticism.

It is clear that astrology is a protoscience with respect to contemporary science:

• Protoscience
• Protoscience wiki - Astrology - this is a wiki
• U of Cal - Exhibit celebrates discovery of rare manuscript
• The Global Oneness Commitment - Astrology - Description: Encyclopedia II
• Dharma Haven - Pseudo-science or Proto-science?

That it is labelled as pseudoscience is also clear. And so is the fact that using non-neutral terms for categories in WP violates WP:NPOV. Aquirata 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, wikis (of which you have a couple above) are not reliable sources so we shouldn't rely on them--but I can live with the U of Calgary cite for protoscience. You can actually probably find better ones.

We aren't starting with criticism: this is the sixth section.

Neutral, reliable sources call it pseudoscience.

So, I am for unlocking the page if the science is first in the science section and both cats are used. Marskell 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell. I've made your change to the first sentence in the "how's this?" text. You can see all the footnotes as inline text by the "edit" link. I don't believe the statement about Urban-Lurain's work contradicts him, because all it says is that these are statistical correlations, not signatures. This and the other studies cited are essential for this topic for those wishing to learn about, and possibly follow up on, scientific/pseudoscientific claims. Otherwise there isn't much purpose to having this topic at all. Protoscience is not as well-worn a term as pseudoscience, but astrology fits the definition of protoscience, because it is a great contributor to various sciences and mathematics as well as modern Jungian archetypal psychology. There must be some good sources other than the U of Calgary one. Maybe [7]. Piper Almanac 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Another ref:

• Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Shakespeare - Science, history of

Aquirata 07:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If pseudoscience is mentioned in the article and we are hosting it in both categories, then one sentence should also be added to say why astrology can be considered a protoscience, with these two refs:

• Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Shakespeare - Science, history of
• University of California, Santa Cruz - Exhibit celebrates discovery of rare manuscript

Do you agree? Aquirata 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Within the contemporary scientific community, it is commonly believed that astrology lacks a relationship to science except as a protoscience and the discipline is generally labelled a pseudoscience .

In principle, I have no problem with a sourced sentence or two on astrology as protoscience. The division suggested below between "historic" and "contemporary" can best handle this and I actually think you're sentence muddies things Piper. Marskell 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper Almanac 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't proper to describe scientific opinions as "beliefs". We are falling into post-modernist mumbo-jumbo there. It would be better to write -

It is the common opinion of the...

...except as a precursor to astronomy.

Jefffire 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So this? (protoscience should be mentioned) Piper Almanac 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the common opinion of the contemporary scientific community that astrology lacks a relationship to science except as a protoscience and the discipline is generally labelled a pseudoscience .

I'm not sure that the scientific community can be said to have a common or collective opinion; I believe (unsourced assertion!) that most scientists would not hold an opinion on the matter, but would nevertheless agree that astrology lacks scientific validity. Something like: (s/believed/accepted) EdC 03:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Within the contemporary scientific community, it is commonly accepted that astrology lacks a relationship to science...

Agree - let's unlock

Use the preceding "how's this?" text and both the pseudoscience and protoscience categories.

• Piper Almanac 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is acceptable to get it unblocked. Thanks Piper. Marskell 11:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree

• Sorry to ruin the party, but I believe the larger issues of attitude, motivation and cooperation haven't been addressed. We can all pretend to agree to a compromise solution, but, without dealing with the underlying dynamics, things will end up where we started. I suggest we take it to arbitration. Aquirata 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Once it's unblocked, we might...

You know, we could actually have two sections, "historic" and "contemporary." The former could explain why a protoscience label has historical accuracy and the latter could start with the paragraph I prefer above. Subsequent to that we could have an "Astrology and society" section which could absorb more of the testing, debunking campaigns, stats on who believes what, and criticism of horoscopes in newspapers. This may be better rationalization and actually provide more info. Marskell 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the second section should be called 'Scientific research'. We are not here to highlight what science thinks about astrology and vice versa, but to record research studies. Aquirata 12:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nein. Recording research studies is a large part of what was wrong with OVA. And why are we not here to highlight what science thinks about astrology or vice versa? It's of legitimate interest. Marskell 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

'Astrology and science' has a social connotation (i.e. the relationship between the two, what one side thinks of the other). This is different from research into astrology. How do you want to deal with that without mentioning studies? Aquirata 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We mention them, but we do not record them. A positive study on astrology has yet to be published in a mainstream journal, this is a fact. Those studies which have been performed do not meet our reliablility standards, so they are only good to verify what astrologer believe. If we were to mention the all the studies which astrologers claim are relible then the article would probably stretch into the gigabytes. Jefffire 14:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where the heck have you been? :) A source can be reliable without being published in a mainstream scientific journal. Any discipline labelled a pseudoscience by mainstream science will not get published in mainstream scientific journals controlled by mainstream scientists. Therefore, to have any material in WP about these subjects, you will have to accept other reliable sources. This is either in WP:V or WP:RS, and you know it.

I'm tired of going around in circles due to your and Marskell's trying to block good content. This issue was a contributing factor to why the OVA article was deleted and why this page got blocked. There needs to be a change in attitude here. We can pretend to agree on a compromise and get the page unblocked, but if you keep questioning reliable sources just because they are not mainstream scientific journals, we will not get anywhere. Sources skeptics also publish in regularly (e.g., Journal of Scientific Exploration) certainly meet WP's standards. Correlation is certainly a reliable source, too. Get with it. Aquirata 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"A source can be reliable without being published in a mainstream scientific journal." Not if we're using to verify scientific data, it can't. Marskell 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with Marskell. Correllation, and other fringe journals are not a reliable source of scientific information, only of beliefs, claimed results and practices. There are very few (if any) citations of articles printed within them in journals considered mainstream and reliable, and Correllation is clearly biased from its introductary blurb. They patently do not meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guidelines for use as sources of scientific information. Jefffire 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is exactly why there is no good reason to unblock the page. A political, non-cooperative attitude, as displayed by comments repeatedly made by Jefffire and Marskell. Aquirata 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you propose that we accept creationist journals as reliable scientific sources on origins of life, or Evolution? Jefffire 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and this is not a good analogy. There are viable scientific theories for the origin of life and evolution, so in effect creationism is a competing theory (regardless of validity). Mainstream science doesn't have anything to say about a correlation between celestial and earthly phenomena, with the exception of an a priori rejection. When no mainstream theory is present, you have to look to sources in alternative publications. Aquirata 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Aqu, it's an attitude in keeping with our guidelines and policies. Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and which science journals are reputable both suggest scientific journals and scientific societies are acceptable for scientific experiments. No where does it say "in the absence of this, use what you can." The best policy argument you have is self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves but this is heavily caveated and you aren't even accepting that Correlation should be viewed as dubious. The long-standing, policy accurate, position has been, astrological sources:

• To describe astrology
• Not to make scientific, statistical claims

And not its not just Jeffire and myself. JzG agreed with this; even Zeus agreed with this. Marskell 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The skeptic sources aren't that good either. The Carlson article in "mainstream" Nature, being published quite a while ago and controversial, has never been attained again since then. It's more like an anonaly and should not be taken as the standard. How can it? There are a couple of skeptic sources cited from psychology journals, one of them so old and inscrutable by Internet that you can't find out any details at all. Dean and Kelly cite Addey but if Addey were alive, he'd certainly have made a tougher, more astrological hypothesis. If you look at the sources, most of the skeptic sources are opinion articles based on principles and not published in science journals. I don't see that great a disparity in reliability of sources here. Piper Almanac 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem going over the other sources. Marskell 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you take an action item to rank all sources? Piper Almanac 15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by rank all sources. It's all claim dependent, to be sure. "It has been criticized by individual scientists" is relatively generic and so a link to a lecture or talk from Dawkins or Hawking suffices. A dictionary is good for a simple definition. "A 50% correlation between A and B", by contrast, ought to be a research paper in a reputable source.

The other thing is the refs are a mess and many have been lost through reverts and slices. I'll format the critical ones when it's back up and see what we have. Marskell 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start is to look at the sources themselves, where was the information published? A quote from Dawkins or Hawking is opinion presumably based on principle unless backed up by evidence. Obviously in a controversial subject like this one, appeal to authority means very little. Piper Almanac 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So:

• "Astrology is a pseudoscience" (Hawking). Not acceptable as asserting an opinion.
• "Astrology has been criticized as a pseudoscience by notable scientists" (Hawking). Acceptable as asserting a fact about an opinion. Hope that helps. Marskell 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's fine. If expert opinion is grounded in findings rather than principle and authority, and the findings are documented and cited, then it's better. The heavier weight should go to the actual sources - the researched evidence, wouldn't you agree? Piper Almanac 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology & Science (My rewrite)

Within the contemporary scientific community astrology is commonly believed to be lacking any significant relationship to science and the subject itself is generally labeled a pseudoscience . Astrology has been criticized as being unscientific both by scientific bodies and by individual scientists . In 1975, the American Humanist Association, which advocates humanism, published one of the most widely known criticisms modern of astrology, characterizing those who continue to have faith in the subject as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary." As many as one-third of Americans believe that there is something to astrology, raising concerns by some people within the scientific community over scientific illiteracy.

Contrary to popular belief, few astrologers in modern times ascribe to the notion that the planets literally cause things to happen on Earth through some sort of direct causal relationship between heavenly bodies and earthly events. The main view amongst astrologers today is that there is some sort of acausal connecting principle at work which provides relationships between astrological observations and events that are purely correlative in nature. The prevailing view since the mid-20th century is the theory of synchronicity proposed by Jung. More recently some within the astrological community have argued that astrology should be understood as a form of divination Both theories raise serious questions about the feasibility of validating astrology through scientific testing, and some have gone so far as to reject the applicability of the scientific method to astrology almost entirely. However, a number of researchers and astrologers have called for or advocated continuing studies of astrology based on statistics, presumably in the belief that the subject is a protoscience which may one day be validated through science and the application of the scientific method to astrology.

Several individuals, most notably French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin, claimed to have found correlations between some planetary positions and certain human traits such as vocations. Gauquelin's most widely known and controversial finding is known as the Mars effect, which is said to demonstrate a correlation between the planet Mars occupying certain positions in the sky more often at the birth of eminent sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people. Since its original publication in 1955 the Mars effect has been subject to numerous studies claiming either to replicate or refute it. In 1988 and 1996, German Professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel published the most recent claim for a Mars effect, with evidence suggesting that it increased in proportion to the eminence of the athletes. Gauquelin also claimed a number of other statistically demonstrable astrological correlations between the diurnal position of other planets at the birth of individuals with specific professions, although the Mars effect is the only study that has been subject to a number of attempted replications by major scientific organizations.

In general, the vast majority of astrologers today do not have the necessary background in science or statistics in order to carry out scientific testing into astrology. In actuality the majority of astrologers in the world today are content with what they perceive to be their own personal validation of astrology though practicing or studying it themselves on a regular basis and making empirical observations concerning what they perceive to be correlations between celestial and earthly events. As a result of this perceived personal validation of the subject through empirical observations, few feel the need to pursue scientific testing of the subject in order to prove it's objective validity and the number of qualified astrologers interested in scientific research as well as scientific journals directed towards astrology are relatively small compared to other fields. Thus, while there may be disagreements amongst astrologers as to the nature of the subject and whether or not it is an art or a science, it is generally accepted amongst astrologers that at the present time astrology does not follow the scientific method in practice.

Critics contend that where tested against personality tests, modern western astrologers have shown a consistent lack of predictive power against these tests. When testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of astrological "time twins" found no support for the hypothesis that two people born at nearly the same time and place would necessarily have similar outcomes in behavior, although astrological timing in the subjects' lives was not tested.

Skeptics of astrology also suggest that the perceived accuracy of astrological predictions and descriptions of one's personality can be accounted for by the fact that we tend to exaggerate positive 'hits' and overlook whatever does not really fit, especially when vague language is used (see Forer effect).

Some supporters of astrology argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of many opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results. Tests of astrology by its critics has sometimes taken the form of debunking campaigns or contests with offers of prize money. Additionally, some researchers from within the scientific community itself have been critical of the way that certain scientific organizations conducted certain research experiments involved in replicating astrological claims.

--Chris Brennan 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Not bad Chris! The new paragraph beginning "in general" will need a source or two and the language needs tweaking (rm "some sort of..."; change present continuous to simple etc.). It's long enough that it probably needs sub-headings, but I'm not sure how to do that without going back to the problematic he said-she said. Marskell 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will start looking through some journals and such for some citations, but I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to find much because those are just sort of common things that are sort of 'known' within the astrological community. I might be able to find some polls or something in an NCGR or an ISAR journal, but I don't know... Feel free to change any grammar that seems out of place and then we can talk about it if there are issues. I agree that it is bordering on being too long so that it might need to be broken up, but I think that it is still coherent enough at this point that we could maybe leave it as it is so that we don't have to force it into a point/counter-point structure by dividing it. I would rather prefer that actually so that it doesn't gradually turn into the OVA article all over again. --Chris Brennan 21:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirs, there are some good improvements in content and tone. It's good to see you involved in the writing. Here are my immediate observations.

• Where online versions of sources are available, we should include links to them.

• The Humanist article was opinion based on principles, widely referred to as an authoritarian "manifesto" and very controversial, even among scientists. I don't even know why it's included, but the arguments against it are so well known that I can live with it. It just looks bad. I'm not criticizing you, because it was already there.

• Where is the mention of protoscience? It's included as one of the categories.

• I like that you're getting across that modern astrologers don't believe there's a direct causal relationship though I'm not sure "liertally" is as good a word as "mechanically" or something of that nature. I slso question that a notion of causality is ascribed to astrologers by "popular belief". Where is this in popular literature? More accurately it is ascribed to astrologers by the criticism of astrology skeptics, and this is certainly verifiable. And if it continues it is looking more like the pushing of "misinformation" as astrology has embraced the idea of synchronicity.

• It appears to me that most scientists and skeptics genuinely think that astrologers ascribe to the idea of celestial causation initially until they learn otherwise, and I think that this is a result of a broader misconception of astrology that the public actually does have. In a post-Newtonian world it is a perfectly legitimate assumption to make because the notion of causality is so ingrained in our society that the idea that there may be some sort of acuasal connection doesn't really register with most people. It is this sort of foreign concept. --Chris Brennan 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Chris, how are you going to document this "popular belief" without OR? Very possibly the public thinks there is or is not a causal connection, but astrology still works regardless. There are many things science does not explain and science is not "finished." There's a problem with "Contrary to popular belief" and "literally". Piper Almanac 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "prevailing 20th century view" of synchronicity is good. But reading on, I don't see how this could possibly preclude validation through scientific testing, meaning statistical correlation. For that matter, how does divination preclude validation by correlation? Divination is participatory, but so is quantum physics, so there's an uncertainty factor in both. How does this preclude correlation? If the ancient Babylonians didn't believe in correlation, then why did they bother to record their omens and observations?

• The issues surrounding the applicability of the scientific method to divinitory practices, including syncronicity, is dealt with thoroughly by Jung and Cornelius who were the two major proponents of these theories in the 20th century. Any meaningful discussion about these issues would require that all parties involved are familiar with their works and the arguments that they made concerning this point in particular. For Jung I will refer you to his collected works on synchronicity: Carl Gustav Jung, The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8, Synchronicity – Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973. For Cornelius see: Geoffrey Cornelius – The Moment of Astrology, Origins in Divination; Pengiun Books Ltd., London, 1994, republished and revised 2003.

• I agree with Chris that divination cannot be validated by traditional statistics because results are subject-dependent. There is a definite correlation, however, even using wrong charts apparently. How this can be validated remains to be answered, which comes back to the point Andrew Homer frequently makes here (i.e. science needs to develop new tools for grasping astrology). Aquirata 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Chris, I've read these authors and you're not making any point. Astrologers use Jung's idea of synchronicity, but stretch the meaning. Cornelius allows for a mix of nature and imaginagion together. This topic is not about validating divination, nor is it about what is most pertinent to modern science, nor is it about some presumed scientific basis of astrology. It is about the scientific investigation of organized knowledge gained through whatever means astrology has gained it. This is what the researchers who should not be ignored by this topic are doing. They don't see a problem with "feasibility of validating astrology" attributed to whatever. Aqui, is there some study showing correlation with wrong charts? Hand has questioned this common belief. Piper Almanac 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "In general" paragraph is fairly accurate about astrologers being in large part practitioners but who also attempt to do their own research through networking. There's an obvious lack of resources and funding for scientific research. Yes, it would be nice to see some sources.

• An inexcusable omission is the few scientific studies that have been done with actual astrological hypotheses and astrological reasoning that found positive results. These efforts may not be the best science, and may not have been published in the finest of journals, but these studies have been done by scientists using scientific methods using the best resources and publications available to them. All have made claims that verify astrological beliefs and have called for further study. How can a topic purportedly on astrology and science ignore the scientists doing the actual research? We see Gauquelin, but where are the others? They have to go back in or this topic means absolutely nothing at all.

• You said that they "may not be the best science, and may not have been published in the finest of journals..." That is precisely the issue. Gauquelin is the best and the strongest example of astrologers doing research into astrology and he has a full paragraph. Guquelin knew what it took to legitimize his studies in the eyes of the scientific community, such as publishing them in reputible journals and pursuing larger scientific organziations and other researchers in order to get them replicated. The authors of these other studies have not done this yet, possibly because they are not ready for critical peer review, and this is evinced by the fact that they haven't been published in reputible scientific journals yet. If these studies were solid and ready for review then their authors would present them to the scientific community because that is the whole reason why these people do them in the first place. They certainly aren't doing it simply for the entertainment of the astrological community because the community couldn't give a fig less about scientific studies of astrology for the most part. By that I mean that most astrologers don't really need or long to have astrology validated by science because they already feel that it has quite a bit of validity through their own personal experience, so scientific testing is met with indifference. If you are doing scientific testing of astrology, then the scientific community is what counts, and from that perspective it isn't necessary to list a bunch of studies here. This is only supposed to be a short piece anyways. However, we could put them in a footnote at the end of this sentence: "However, a number of researchers and astrologers have called for or advocated continuing studies of astrology based on statistics, presumably in the belief that the subject is a protoscience which may one day be validated through science and the application of the scientific method to astrology." --Chris Brennan 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that "possibly because they are not ready for critical peer review" is not only OR but probably not true, either. The main reason astrological studies don't get published in mainstream scientific journals is publication bias, i.e. mainstream scientific editorial boards don't want to embarrass themselves by publishing astrological articles because they don't understand all the issues involved. So rather than publishing something possibly unworthy, they refuse to publish anything astrological. This has been well documented in Eysenck & Nias among others.
• The justification "presumably in the belief that the subject is a protoscience" is again OR and not true I believe. It's a historical fact that astrology was a protoscience, and this should be recorded. That some astrologers may believe it is a protoscience now has no relation to attempts of validation. The evidence of scientific disciplines continuing to spin off astrology is what makes it protoscience today.
• "If you are doing scientific testing of astrology, then the scientific community is what counts, and from that perspective it isn't necessary to list a bunch of studies here.": Ouch! Isn't it clear to everybody involved here that scientific research into astrology requires expertise in both scientific methodology and astrology? No, it's not up to science to objectively validate astrology. And it's not up to astrologers, either. Interdisciplinary researchers are required here, and they are far and few between because it is very difficult to grasp both worlds. It is much simpler to win the Nobel prize than to qualify for this job.
• "It isn't necessary to list a bunch of studies here": You mean you wish to omit groundbreaking research in the article? On what grounds? Because you think they are unworthy of mention? Chris, do you have an appreciation for scientific research into astrology? Are you familiar with all studies published on the subject? Are you qualified to make these calls? I would think that, by thinking that only the Mars effect is important, you have demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the subject. Aquirata 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You make claims of "publication bias" but do not offer any substantiation. Under Wikipedia guidelines studies not published in mainstream sources can't be considered scientificaly reliable. The reason they aren't published is irrelevent. You say "bias", we say "merit", but both are OR. What matters is the fact that they aren't being published in mainstream sources, and so can't be considered reliable under Wikipedia guidelines. If there is a conspiracy, then you will have to crack it in the real world, not here. Wikipedia is not here to report your hidden truth. Jefffire 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources can be cited where they concern the subject of the article. Published research into astrology does not have to pass a science test in order to be quoted. But we should not argue either that it is scientific research, just research. (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions) Lumos3 13:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

J, Let me quote you on this: "Why publish a rebuttal in Nature to an article which serious scientists don't give credence to? That would be a waste of time and finance, and would be viewed by many as lowering themselves." That sounds to me like publication bias. Aquirata 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

One source says this about orthodox bias: "'Orthodox scientists' [...] attitude [to astrology] has been hostile in the extreme. John Gribbin, who with Steven Plagemann wrote The Jupiter Effect, [...] mentions a telling episode. Plagemann, then working for NASA, was approached by a colleague working in the same building. 'You know,' he said, 'I’m really glad to see that stuff in print. I’ve been working on predicting solar flares for years, and I’ve got a file of evidence which shows a definite relationship with Jupiter-Saturn alignments. But I daren’t put that in my report — it’s more than my job is worth.' John Gribbin continues his account: 'Steve, of course, is now farming in Ireland, while his anonymous colleague still has a desk job in NASA.' This is the climate of the inquisition, not of factual, unbiased enquiry; many of the people in the scientific establishment would have fitted well into the panel which condemned Galileo! We have become aware of this climate of censorship and intolerance, both through reports from individuals directly affected and from remarks warning us that even criticizing astrology in detail and showing familiarity with its pronouncements, would undermine our scientific standing and reputation." (Eysenck & Nias)

Ah, deja vu. Publication bias indeed. But it's not our problem. Write a letter to Nature. Marskell 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether the sources for this research are scientific sources, or whether or not the authors were ready for mainstream science publication, or whether scientific journals are not qualified in astrology and avoid the issue, or what the average astrologer thinks about this research, one way or the other. These are astrological claims and astrological sources can be be cited for astrological claims. We've already resolved this issue in previous talk. These scientific claims by astrologers are essential to this topic of Astrology and science. Piper Almanac 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If the claims have a putative scientific basis (as opposed to general descriptions of what the topic involves) we require reputable scientific sources. It's not irrelevant--it's policy. "Self-published and dubious sources..." does not give a blank cheque to use whatever source you like. Marskell 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They are astrological claims published in astrological sources. You cannot find better sources than claims published in their own journals. They are not presented in the topic as scientific fact, but as astrological claims. There's nothing dubious about this. Piper Almanac 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"They are astrological claims published in astrological sources." Right--they are inherently dubious and they should not be used. The content policies are designed precisely for problems of this sort. Marskell 18:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché. --Chris Brennan 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You know perhaps of some better source for astrological claims than astrological jounals? Where, pray tell? Piper Almanac 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Piper, I think we have another category difference. Your argument amounts to: in the absence of credible sources that would pass policy muster we should be able to use astrological sources for basically scientific claims (X correlates to Y) on the astrology page. My argument amounts to: in the absence of credible sources that would pass policy muster we should use nothing beyond general description. Correlation and sources like it are inherently unreliable in presenting scientific studies purporting to analyze astrology. You can, like Aqu, present a circumlocution at this point or selectively read policy wrong, but the letter and spirit of policy dictate this reading. Describe astrology with astrogolical sources, but do not make secondary or tertiary claims. Marskell 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Correlation accepts that astrology can be statistically investigated. Is this somehow unscientific? It is university-based and peer-reviewed by experts in statistics and astrology. It publishes both positive and negative findings. It publishes letters and comments. It seems to me that this makes in inherently reliable for the subject matter.

I'm sorry but astrology makes some scientific claims. I think you agree that this is an indisputable fact. In an article on astrology and science this fact is the salient area of interest. What you want to say is: 'Well astrology is pseudoscience and makes some ridiculous scientific claims, and although you're probably very curious, we're not allowed to tell you what they are because it's against Wikipedia policy'. Rubbish! Who is doing the circumlocution? Piper Almanac 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Exciting opportunities are opening up for astrologers seeking a deeper understanding of astrology, how it works and what it means." (all that's missing is a couple of these !!). This is a partisan source published by what is essentially an advocacy group whose mission is "to bring astrology out of the fringe and into society's mainstream." Yes, it is against Wikipedia policy to aid in such endeavours. And for the umpteenth time, it's not the claims itself that should be barred, but the dubious sources. Marskell 08:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to bend over backwards to describe it as a current protoscience. The main purpose of the cat IMO is as a historical label. Marskell 08:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Piper Almanac 23:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a few items I would add to Piper's apt and well-stated critique:

• Gauquelin's other findings, most notably the 'Saturn effect', will need to be mentioned
• Divination is not a recent phenomenon, just recently revived
• "Replication by major scientific organizations" w.r.t. the Mars effect is inaccurate I believe; "replication by notable scientific or skeptic organizations" may be better
• If we are pointing out that most astrologers are not qualified to do scientific research, we should also point out that most scientists are not educated well enough for making comments on or researching astrology

Other than these and Piper's comments, it's a good version. Aquirata 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Looking at the widely differing views of editors on what constitutes a reliable source for the Astrology page, it may be wise to look at what the policies and guidelines actually say about this issue.

From WP:RS:

Some definitions

• "As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic."

So 'scholars or experts working on a topic' in the context of this article means the community of astrologers.

Beware false authority

• "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing."

Again, these would be reputable astrologers.

"Number claims:" statisticians, mathematicians. Personality claims: behavioural and cognitive scientists. Supposed mechanisms: astronomers and astrophysicists. Of course, any of it must undergo proper peer review.

Astrological claims: astrologers. It's that simple. You can now stop hiding your head in the sand. Aquirata 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you can't even get a fucking BSc in astrology. So who should we be quoting? Aquirate and co.? Save it, please. The brief list above is an acceptable one for the subjects involved. Marskell 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating sources

• "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?"

It would appear that mainstream (orthodox) scientists have an agenda since they already label astrology a pseudoscience.

Re agendas: Astrologers don't have one? Holy Christ.

Who said? I am making a point, you are screaming and yelling. Aquirata 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Find out what other people say about your sources."

Most astrologers would agree that Correlation, The Mountain Astrologer, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, etc, are reliable sources.

Of course they would. Most scientists wouldn't IMHO. What we're really stumbling back up against is the status of the discipline itself. Until astrology per se enters the mainstream (or even comes close to it, like, say, psychoanalysis) your comments on the supposed repute of astrologers don't amount to much. Obviously, anyone publishing in the Mountain Astrologer is going to tell you it's perfectly valid but that doesn't mean we are in a position to treat it as such. Marskell 13:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you haven't the slightest idea what gets published in The Mountain Astrologer. The same goes for scientists without any training in astrology, who cannot bother reading relevant astrological journals. Hence they can be no authority on astrology. Aquirata 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure your average scientist doesn't have a clue what gets published in the Mountain Ufologist. Too bad for you. The source is dubious and its bound by that part of policy. Any larger systematic injustice should be taken up on the pages of the relevant journals and not here. Marskell 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the fuss is all about. It would seem that Marskell and Jefffire (and now Chris Brennan is also starting to show his colours after all) scream and yell because their house is on fire. The only sources that could be questioned here are the ones from the orthodoxy. Aquirata 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that you would talk about "true colours" with Chris. He appears to know more about this topic by many orders of magnitude than yourself and yet you're even resisting his analyses. As far as true colours go, how about this: nothing that is said to you is going to make any difference. So, whatever. Unlock the page and we'll have at it. You're the only one resisting the pseudoscience label at this point and that's the only thing holding back the unlock. Marskell 13:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all.

First, Chris has shown he doesn't have a grasp on scientific research into astrology, He is on shaky grounds even with history. If you believe that anyone at age 21 after 5 years of study can be an authority on astrology, you are also showing you have no clue what you're talking about. The reason why astrology is a lifetime study is because one needs life experiences to master it. It's not sufficient to study hard like in scientific disciplines. Nevertheless, he can be a valuable contributor. On the other hand, Piper has demonstrated a wide and deep understanding of what astrology is and the related issues. I don't know him personally and have no idea who he is, but his writing is sound.

Second, categorization is not the only issue as I have highlighted above. Reliable sources is another. Your (i.e. your and Jefff's) unwillingness to cooperate even on the most basic WP etiquette level is another. Your hostile attitude towards the subject is yet another. Your motivation to stamp out valid arguments in favour of astrology is another. The list goes on and on. Aquirata 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"At age 21 after 5 years..." Ad hominem BS. Einstein was 26 in 1905; I'm sure a 21 year-old can give a good run down of astrology. I can give you (re-give probably) some quotes from Jimbo on the topic. The only people who I have seen who seem to know what they're talking about are Zeus and Chris. (Don't I? I'm not the one inserting extraordinary claims with dubious sources.) But whatever. I'll try and save the theatrics and just edit policy as I've known it. You can misunderstand as you like. Marskell 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you. Second, let me confirm that age has little to do with knowledge and reasonable behavior. By way autobiography, I studied astrology at a very early age and was publishing and teaching oldtimers by Chris's age. I miraculously outgrew belief in astrology but experienced ageism in the same way, though most older, established astrologers showed nothing but respect. Beside that, you don't need a lifetime of experience in a subject to grasp history, research in the field, and theories. Chris, IMO, has proven that he is a smart guy and does not let his investment in professional astrology get in the way of encyclopedic NPOV. Zeusnoos 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Obvious 'Astrological Significance' of Archaeoastronomy

Maybe this info I am going to propose would better belong in the History of astrology article, but it seems that most if not all archaeoastronomical sites were built for these cultures to express their 'cosmic admiration' or 'cosmic awe' for their God(s), so possibly these sites have much more astrological significance than people (i.e. modern, highly skeptical scientists) give them credit for. Perhaps we should include more about the astrological significance of these amazing structures in this article, as it is highly significant information in both the history of astrology AND astronomy. For instance, we know that many archaeoastronomical sites are astronomically amazing and significant in that they uncannily line up with the cycles of the sun, moon, and planets, but WHY would these cultures go through the laborious process of building these sites if they didn't attach any astrological and/or spiritual significance to them? Thank you for your time and suggestions and let us keep working together to IMPROVE this article rather than continuing to tear it apart. --172.150.63.12 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The trouble of course is properly attributing the evidence that these sites were used for. While it is obvious to the inquiring mind that all these sites were astrological or spiritual in nature, modern terminology separated astrology and astronomy into two disciplines, elevating one of them to the scientific pedestal. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to call the study of these ancient spiritual sites Archaeoastronomy, but that's our current state of affairs. The fact that these sites have spiritual significance and therefore they were astrological sites is only mentioned in passing (two sentences). This is simply indicative of current times, when details (parts) are more important than meaning (the whole). Aquirata 09:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense. Researchers like Robin Heath are very knowledgeable in the astrological value of these sites and publish in astrological journals. Piper Almanac 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Properly attributing the evidence" often means properly attributing the people involved. It's endlessly fascinating to conjecture, but I think in a lot of cases we won't ever know the true spiritual intent behind a lot of monuments. Stonehenge, for instance, is often mis-labelled Druidic Celtic, but it's actually pre-Celtic. We don't really know who built it. Maybe it was "astrological" or merely "pagan" (is one necessarily the other?). I would guess (imagine) that they had a relatively advanced calendar they wanted to codify and no doubt they invested the monument with other religious significance. "Cosmic awe" seems right enough. Just one example. Marskell 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one of the main reasons I suggested that a section be added on the astrological/spiritual portion of archaeoastronomy is that the main astrology article is simply TOO SHORT. Compared to the Tarot article and quite a few other occult topic articles which are FAR more extensive, the astrology article is just WAAAY too short given the age and complexity of astrology and the many traditions/subfields associated with it. There are many articles here on Wikipedia that are related to astrology (just look in Category:Astrology or Category:Astrological factors), but it seems that the main article is sorely lacking for a field of study as amazingly ancient as astrology. --172.148.82.207 02:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Marskell, since you are a Canadian, you may understand this analogy. It is a fact that some prominent Americans call Canadians "mediocre" and "godless commies." These statements can be reliably sourced and mentioned in an article about Canada. However, that is no justification for categorizing Canadians under "Mediocre people" or "Godless communists." Aquirata 12:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When quotes from Pat Buchanan became a basis for categorization, let me know. I'll be the first to lodge a protest. Let me know too if the cats "Mediocre people" and "Godless communists" every get created. I'll ship them to CfD. Marskell 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mars, you can stop pretending that you don't understand. Just bury your hatchet for a moment and apply WP policies. The point is that sources must be reliable in the context of the article. Scientists having no training in astrology are no authorities on astrology, not even on astrology's scientific claims. Period. Your house was built on sand, it's high time to abandon it. Aquirata 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point, as I see it, is that you used a stupid anology. So it goes. Marskell 22:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How many sections do we need on this topic? Take it to WP:NPOV if you have a problem with the category, request for comment, or propose a deletion, but spare us this beating of a dead horse. Jefffire 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

J, as long as you keep pushing your misguided POV. Aquirata 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To use the category pseudoscience there must be a rational justification. This, like everything else in Wikipedia, relies on sources. The sources must be published, otherwise the category pseudoscience is invalid. The chain or reason for astrology as a pseudoscience goes like this:

Astrology is pseudoscience. Why? Because many scientists believe it is. Why do they believe this? Because astrology makes scientific claims that aren't valid. What claims? Things like red hair, alcoholism, marriage of same signs, earthquakes, stock market, etc. How do you know these are the claims? Because they have sources, here. Why aren't these valid? Because they're not published in the best science journals. They look good to me, what's wrong with them? I don't know, the scientists haven't looked at them. Then how do you know astrology is pseudoscience? I don't, yet. Then how can you claim it is? Because many scientists believe it is. What's the basis of this belief? Good faith. Piper Almanac 16:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Beware (again) the reverse onus. A simpler formulation thus: astrology is a pseudoscience until it proves itself otherwise. Scientists don't need to prove it a pseudoscience; astrologers need to prove it a science or else declaim any scientific basis and treat it simply as a faith. And given Chris's analysis of the sources you are still widely touting, it seems astrologers themselves are aware of this. Marskell 16:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that astrology has proved itself otherwise through its publications. Piper Almanac 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to believe so. Marskell 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is faulty. Labeling is an effort to affect the status of something. Things do not just sprout labels on their own. If some people what to label astrology as pseudoscience then the onus is on those who believe it is and wish to label it so. Otherwise astrology is simply astrology and goes about its business without any label with regard to science. If the effort is made to stick astrology with a label then there must be a basis. What is it? Piper Almanac 17:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If the effort is made to suggest a scientific basis/make scientific claims then the majority scientific label, if sourced, belongs here. How many times does that need stating? The only onus on us as editors is to show that the label is regularly deployed and not simply our deduction (NOR), that we can actually cite it (V), and that source is neutral (the NSF is, Aqu's machinations aside). Note, it's by this very logic that I accept the protoscience cat. It's not simply a "a for this, must be against that."

Thus, your "what is it?" is irrelevant as it invites speculation which is not the determinant of what belongs. Of course, I do have an answer: a single study in an advocacy journal that likely has an impact factor of zero and has been called a laughing stock on this talk page...is not enough to abrogate four hundred years of mechanist-empiricist science.

You keep making this mistake, Piper: deploying your own reasoning to deduce what does or does not belong. And I thought we were agreed on both anyhow? Marskell 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If the effort is made to make scientific claims, complete with sound astrological hypotheses, data anaysis, peer-review, etc. then the claims stand unless falsified. There has bee no falsification, thus the claims are legitimate. To declare that the claims are not legitimate because they are pseudoscience, regardless of falsification is not how science is supposed to work. This topic is supposed to be on astrology and science, not astrology and scientists, or astrology and faith. Somehow science has to enter the picture, and this is what I've been pushing for. Yes, we did agree to have both of the categories. That's fine. What's still missing, after Chris, is the astrological claims that are the basis for the pseudoscience label. It goes back to the question in the chain, "They look good to me, what's wrong with them?" or "what is it that makes the label stick?" The answer so far is, "Nothing." A lot of work has gone into these claims and they have gone through a scientific process. Unless falsified, they are legitimate claims. If completely ignored, there is no scientific basis for the pseudoscience label and it is an argument of faith. Piper Almanac 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, faries exist if I say so unless you prove me wrong. This is the reverse onus, my friend.

And all of this is circles and circles. I didn't declare "the claims are not legitimate". I declared they weren't published in the right place. We don't need "astrological claims" for the pseudoscience label. We need scientific claims for the pseudoscience label--which we have. I don't care if they look good or don't look good to you. And I don't care if there is a scientific basis for the label (though of course I think there is). I only care that we can source it. Which we can.

Let's use both cats and unlock the damn page. Marskell 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You leave faries out of this you godless communist you! --Chris Brennan 22:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:) Aquirata 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that scientists who haven't studied astrology are no authorities on classifying astrology anything at all. Not even Hawking. They simply fail WP:RS in the context of this page. Aquirata 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientists are perfectly able to classify research areas which make scientific claims or purport to a scientific basis (particularly when, say, astrological claims would require any astrophysical mechanism to be valid, or when a statsman encounters a supposed statistical relation).

But whatever again. I'm not arguing the validity of the label but the sourcability and relevance. Maybe Hawking is all wrong--I don't care. It's sourcable just as your protoscience label is sourcable. Marskell 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, use both protoscience and pseudoscience categories and unlock the page. The argument for me is whether the claim of pseudoscience means we should also document the falsifiable sources of the claim or just document the scientists who make the claim based on their good faith and leave science out of it. Piper Almanac 23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The category itself, of course, cannot be annotated. It's just a cat based on the sum of various sources used, as is divination (which you could argue is itself disputed). So I'm not sure what you mean "document the falsifiable sources of the claim". Again, we don't need an OR interpretation of what you feel is and is not valid. Various scientists/scientific bodies say so, so we say so. I've noticed three arguments here, over-lapping to various degrees:

• That we can't source it (which is not true)
• That scientists aren't in a position to judge (which is not true and is actually irrelevant because it's not our place to judge what they can judge, only what they say)
• That it is offensive. Now, leaving aside the silly analogies to race and nationality, at guideline level this is actually your strongest argument as WP:CG advises not to cat in contoversial cats. At policy level, this is trumped IMO, by "represent majority scientific view as majority view," and "clearly, fully, fairly explain" science in the context of pseudoscience etc.

I think it would be silly to take this to ArbComm as we'd probably be rejected and it's doubtful admins will allow this page to remain locked for the duration of a case (locking is explicitly supposed to be temporary). Given, as I say, that only Aqu is objecting now (I'm taking your position as grudging acceptance) I think we should just unlock. I have written this which I think is much fuller and I'd like to insert it. Marskell 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim of pseudoscience didn't just happen by itself. Someone put it there and this is an intesting and essential fact because it is a highly charged claim. The Wikipedia category isn't sourced, but the statement of claim in the article needs to be sourced. In support of the claim, you are willing to source "who" (scientists obviously) but not willing to source "where", "why" and "how". To include these, you need to point to what the scientists are looking at and explain what they see. I've provided some good astrological claims from "astrological" sources. It is irrelevant whether these are science/pseudoscience claims; they are astrological claims and can be comfortably sourced as such by Wikipedia rules. What the scientists are looking at (as we might expect, given the label) is the growing body of published research claims. Now the criteria for scientific claims, as you should know being a follower of Popper, is falsifiablity. This, we should correctly assume (unless shown otherwise), is what the scientists are thinking. The next obvious question is, have the scientists tried to falsify these research claims? The answer is, other than Gauquelin, no (unless we find otherwise). All this needs to be stated. Once you start down that path you need to go to the end, especially for such a contentious claim. I'd like to offer some comments on your rewrite, here. Piper Almanac 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Where" and "who". That's what sourcing is. You can save the how and why for your own research papers. Marskell 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one bothers to falsify articles published in piece-of-crap journals. Publishing in a piece-of-crap journal, and then trumpeting yourself as un-falsified later, is the height of foolishness. Jefffire 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Hi. While I was reading this article, I was confused by this line

Thus, while there may be disagreements amongst astrologers as to the nature of the subject and whether or not it is an art or a science, it is generally accepted amongst astrologers that at the present time astrology does not follow the scientific method in practice.

Doesn't that contradict itself? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 08:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is contradictory insofar as "general acceptance" contradicts the existence of disagreement. Which it doesn't. That's not to say that the sentence couldn't be made clearer.

By the looks of things, it seems a slightly weasely sentence that's trying to circumvent, or at least lessen the impact of, being labelled pseudoscience. The necessary conditions (loosely) for a field of study to be classed pseudoscientific is that (a) it largely eschews correct application of the scientific method and (b) it purports to conform to the scientific method. Therefore, the best way to avoid the label would be (1) find sources that show astrology's adherence to the scientific method or (inclusive 'or', I suppose) (2) report that astrologers never really claimed astrology's scientific validity.

The sentence you quote seems to be doing a little of both, which is confusing, but not necessarily contradictory (since I suppose there could exist a pathological case where all practitioners of some field could unintentionally be applying correct scientific methods, but never ever actually claim scientific validity). Tez 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded this to read "Thus, while there may be disagreement whether or not astrology is an art or a science, it is generally accepted that at the present time most astrologers do not follow the scientific method in practice." Aquirata 12:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Can we please try to insert a ref once, name it, and then refer to it when re-using it? See 6 and 7. Marskell 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to give me more time between attacks so that a quality job can be done. Aquirata 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Mercury went retrograde and suddenly the article's unlocked and immediately transformed by revisions. Sorry, I just couldn't help that observation. There's a lot of very good work in this article and it shows. Kudos to you both! Piper Almanac 17:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Piper, I'm glad you like the work on the page. Who are you referring to with "both"? Aquirata 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mabey you should have seen it coming? ;) Jefffire 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Ya, and the sun came up. Marskell 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's occured to me that I didn't need to be glib responding to Piper here (a by-product of too much time spent on this). Sorry, and thank-you for your kudos Piper. Marskell 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya, so what's significant about that? The sun does that every day. Mercury only goes retro three times a year. Doovinator 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

20th and 21st centuries

Marskell, I have backed up my statement "The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen a revival of interest in astrology, leading to newly proposed hypotheses and an increase in research activity" with direct quotes from Dean et al. Will that be sufficient to convince you? Aquirata 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah fuck, I knew adding more info would lead to more arguing. The same source states "Astrology can be largely explained by intuition, gullibility and [statements of] universal validity." This from Year Zero [8]. Do you want that in there? Would "Dean later compared astrological belief to belief in fairies." (from the PSI paper) be a sentence you'd appreciate?

You're deliberately cherry-picking a positive spin from a source that is obviously critical. Marskell 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What's positive about increased research activity? It doesn't say anything about results. This is simply a statement of fact that can be verified by looking at number of members, number of publications, etc. You are attempting to censor this article. The statement you are quoting is an opinion, increased research activity is not. I can't understand why it bothers you. Aquirata 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Increased research activity where? Did they start handing out accredited Phds in astrology and we missed it? Astrology, qua scientific disciplines, is not a discipline. The research amounts to advocates and enthusiasts--all you're attempting to do is to spike the summative history (and note I wrote the summative history to give it all a fair overview) with a "revialist" interpretation <INSERT NON-SEQUITUR REBUTTAL HERE>.

Regarding how you are using Dean to do this, I don't know what to say because playing stupid is beyond you. Marskell 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For folk longer on opinion than knowledge, legitimate degrees in Astrology can be acquired in Washington state, USA; Florida state, USA; and @ the Sophia Centre, Bath University, UK. Andrew Homer 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For those longer on money than intelligence do a google search and you can pay some jackass when his "astrology school" ads pop at right. Kepler is the only college in the West authorized to issue astrology degrees--and Kepler is non-accredited. At Florida State you'll find nuggests like this "What distinguishes science from other methods of inquiry, such as astrology?" on the Phil. site. None of these, to be sure, leave the Arts of the Arts & Sciences dept's.

Sorry Andrew: Astrology, qua scientific disciplines, is not a discipline. And learn to edit pages before editing them. Marskell 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The last university mentioned does not seem to give out degrees in astrology, but its social impact (which is, of course, a relevant history/sociology/religious/etc. study). From the site: "The Centre studies the impact of astrological and astronomical beliefs on cultures, religions, politics and the arts". Although I would not be surprised if there were a glowing recommendation hidden between the lines, what with a name like "Sophia" (we have a bookshop called that next door, and apparently there is nothing the proprietor does not believe in). So sorry, the university in question does hand out degrees in practising astrology, any more than a Study of Religion centre gives you the ability to pray more efficiently - I suspect the others do the same, but I will let Andrew or someone else carry his own burden of proof in those cases. Lundse 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personality tests

Upon checking the references, the PDF which criticises self personality tests is discussing a form of test which is different from that used in the astrotest. I've taken out the corresponding sentence as OR since it appears to be based soley on the fallacious assumption that the PDF was relevent to the astrotest. Jefffire 12:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This assessment is completely unfounded. From the summary of the paper:

"Research from numerous corners of psychological inquiry suggests that self-assessments of skill and character are often flawed in substantive and systematic ways. We review empirical findings on the imperfect nature of self-assessment and discuss implications for three real world domains: health, education, and the workplace. In general, people’s self-views hold only a tenuous to modest relationship with their actual behavior and performance. The correlation between self-ratings of skill and actual performance in many domains is moderate to meager— indeed, at times, other people’s predictions of a person’s outcomes prove more accurate than that person’s self-predictions."

I have reinstated the sentence with this ref.

For WP's sake, please install Google toolbar with the spellchecker. You are introducing spelling errors in the article and on the Talk page. Aquirata 13:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the astrotest ref. The tests used are clearly distinct from the "self assement" tests which are being discussed. You have twisted a single article about a completely unrelated subject which relates in no way to the astrotest (since they are not using the form of self analysis discussed in the PDF file to create an OR complaint about the astrotest. Jefffire 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are you reading this into the Astrotest? I quote:

"On the average the participants sent me ten questions to be answered by the test subjects, leaving aside those that did not formulate any questions. I synthesized the questions into a list of 25 that covered several aspects of the subjects life: their education, vocation, hobbies, interests, main goals, personality, relationships, health, religion, etc. In addition, I asked them for the dates of some important events in their life, because many participants had shown an interest in specific dates. Finally, I added 24 multiple choice questions that I had taken from the Berkeley Personality Profile."

A questionnaire is a self-assessment. The reliability of which is exactly what the research questions. Aquirata 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The PDF relates to self-assesment of heavily qualitative personality test, whilst the astrotest, not the mention the Nature article, utilises more quantitative reports.

However, in spite of this potential bias, most questions concerned verifiable facts. There is no reason to assume that the subjects lied about their hobbies or the date of their wedding. Even if all facts were false (including the birth dates), this would not explain why the astrologers failed to demonstrate mutual agreement.

Until you can prove that the astrotest reports and the Nature article are using the exact kinds of test discussed in the PDF, then your objection is OR. Jefffire 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the specific objection, we can make it more general. Aquirata 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like a sourced criticism from a reliable source, not original research. Jefffire 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the one we had? Aquirata 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It didn't correctly apply to the tests. Please find a specific criticism of the Nature article or the astrotest, rather than formulating OR from unrelated articles. Jefffire 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Question on References, statements and some comments

First, why does this article include references such as "Nick Campion's Online Astrology Resource"[[9]] for claims on science? From what I read, doesn't it violate wikipedia's policy on credible sources, as found in WP:Reliable sources? The policy says that we should use reliable published sources, and I think many links to external sites which are referenced in this article are not reliable or published Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, in the following statements

• astrology is the study of the correlation of those objects with earthly affairs.

That statement implies that there is some correlation between planets and earthly affairs. But, that's just a claim, and there's no evidence for that! What I mean is, there's evidence that gravity due to other planets acts the earth, but I don't think there's evidence of correlation between planets and earthly affairs.

• Astrology is variously considered by its proponents to be a symbolic language, a form of art, science

I can understand about art, and symbolic language, but I don't think that astrology is ever considered as a science by any credible astrologer!

Also, after reading this entire article, I liked the history, effects on world culture and info on astrology, but I somehow think that the Science and astrology section, at present, can be improved. I think that it's presented in a point of view which is very favourable to astrology. Just my two cents Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can study anything whatsoever. Just because somebody is studying something, it doesn't follow that the topic is worthy or valid. That astrology is considered science by some astrologers is a fact, look up the refs. Aquirata 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re favourable or not, that's your impression. If anything can be improved, then please point it out specifically. Aquirata 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. In short, what I wanted to convey is, we should change astrology is the study of the correlation of those objects with earthly affairs. to astrology is the study of the supposed correlation of those objects with earthly affairs.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is what we had before but Aquirata keeps getting rid of it. --Chris Brennan 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you source that statement? Aquirata 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*Yawn* --Chris Brennan 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the two main English dictionaries? Actually, don't answer that. The tortured logic will probably upset my tummy. Marskell 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out already, they do not support the description given in the article. Then again, their definition is blatantly wrong, but that's just my view (supported by the vast majority of astrologers). I think a paraphrase of our first sentence should be given here to avoid self-contradiction. "Supposed correlation" certainly doesn't do it for me, and it cannot be sourced. Aquirata 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "supposed" is used in both. That's what you wanted sourced, that's what you got. Marskell 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The statement 'as is' cannot be backed up by the sources. Piecemeal sourcing is never acceptable. Aquirata 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AUTOMATED MARSKELLBOT: The word "supposed" is used in both. That's what you wanted sourced, that's what you got. Marskell 08:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List of shady references

Here's a list of the links present in the article which, in my opinion are shady and might violate WP:Reliable_sources. You may want to take a look at it.

• http://members.aol.com/jeff570/m.html personal website
• http://home.istar.ca/~starman/astrofaq.shtml personal website
• http://www.nickcampion.com/nc/science/science.htm ,Nick Campion's Online Astrology Resource: Science & Astrology (personal website and not credible)
• http://www.chartplanet.com/index.html not credible
• http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ personal website and Not credible(?)
• Note 22, which is missing
• It's messed up after note 47

Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with Jeff Miller's page? It is obviously high-quality material. Michael Star's page is acceptable in my view. To challenge Nick Campion's site is beyond belief. Campion is one of the very few astrologers today who is universally acclaimed. The Chartplanet link could go, not sure why it's included. The Beliefnet article is a story by AP. Astrofaces is a research study, what's wrong with the link? Astrology-and-science.com is the main online critique of astrology (by Rudolf Smit, but representing Dean et al). In all, one link could go, the others are OK. Aquirata 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

* Jeff Miller's page is a personal webpage. In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources, it says to avoid personal webpages. The other two refs for that seem fine!

* Ditto with Michael Star's page

* I'm not questioning Nick Campion's abilites as an astrologer. But, I think a) His view that astrology is a science is an extreme minority view, and therefore not worthy of mention (Look at [10] letter which I found in WP:NPOV from Jimbo). b) He has no crediblity to make claims on science

* I agree with what you say on the chartplanet and beliefnet

* I wasn't sure about the credibility of the astroface test.

* You're right I was completely wrong about the astrology-and-science site.

Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The point with Jeff Miller's and Michael Star's cited pages is that they are not representing something personal. I believe the intent of the 'no personal websites' rule is to make sure of a certain quality (reliability) in references. I don't see anything on those two pages that would raise question marks. Campion's opinion carries a lot of weight within the astrological community. If he says something, you can be sure that it will be backed up by a number of other astrologers. Astrology being considered a science is not an extreme minority viewpoint. If you bother to read Dean's Recent Advances, you will realize how many people have been investigating astrology from a scientific perspective. Aquirata 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that clarificiation.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, personal pages are to be avoided, period. It's for the reason I've been avoiding re-adding BadAstronomy. Marskell 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon and investors

These articles make no reference to astrology or any astrological claim (do a CTRL-F). It's actually an interesting behavioural quirk they may have discovered, but it fits both ordinary psychology (see January effect) and/or bio-chemical reactions to light levels (see seasonal affective disorder). Dubious sources on astrological claims are one thing, but we're certainly not calling astrology that which isn't. Marskell 08:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your nitpicking is reaching astronomical levels. Correlation between celestial bodies and stock prices is an astrological claim. It is called financial astrology. Please study astrology and do your research before making ridiculous claims such as this one. Aquirata 10:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My nitpicking?--an interesting inversion of the pattern here. If they don't call it an astrological claim, we don't. How can we argue that? These are economists making an interesting observation about investor behaviour and its relation (not correlation, BTW) to the lunar cycle. The Moon (and Sun, much more obviously) affect mood--this can affect day-to-day decisions. Again, perfectly explicable in terms of psychology and bio-chemistry. Marskell 11:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. Calling something an astrological claim assures only that it doesn't get published in mainstream journals. Then you will censor the claim because it is not from a reliable source. You really can't see how twisted this is? Aquirata 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be twisted is our deducing that something is an astrological claim when the source makes absolutely no reference to it. This is pretty simple stuff: they don't say so, we don't say so.

And the points above remain. There is nothing about this particular claim that cannot be explained by ordinary science. Marskell 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Moon affects mood: How do you propose to explain this using modern science? Aquirata 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunlight affects serotonin levels which affect mood; it only makes sense that full moonlight would do the same to a lesser degree. Much as many people feel awful around artificial light (particularly flourescents) so people feel better around natural light. I don't see that this requires an esoteric explanation. Marskell 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunlight has an obvious effect on mood. That the amount of sunlight received is said to correlate with serotonin levels in human bodies (who claims BTW?) offers no explanation and aims not in understanding, but that's the reductionist way of making sense of the world, so fine.

Now it's quite a leap of faith to apply that to the Moon. First of all, the amount of light reflected by the Moon is minuscule compared to that from the Sun. Secondly, are you sure that the correlation works out the way it's supposed to, i.e. new Moon = bad mood, full Moon = good mood? I don't think that agrees with the finding.

On a more philosophical note, what I feel coming is this. Scientists say astrology is pseudoscience. Therefore, any astrological claim is nonsense. However, we now know that the phase of the Moon correlates with stock prices to some extent, and can explain this in scientific terms (let's assume). Therefore, this phenomenon is a scientific and not an astrological claim because astrology is pseudoscience.

Am I getting close? Aquirata 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So is the correllation of the movement of the sun and moon to tides astrological? Jefffire 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're getting close in the sense that a conventional explanation doesn't require an extraordinary supplement. For example, the earlier argument that the tidal affects of the Moon validate "meteorological astrology". Well, no--they validate tidal force and I don't see what more needs to be said. Having suffered from insomnia and seasonal depression, I'm sure any doctor will tell you that weather, light levels, and sleep levels (which moonlight can affect) all impinge on the mood swings and severity. Why do I need astrology to explain that?

As for the specifics--full Moon = "good mood,"?--no, I'm not sure. There is a converse argument: a full moon reduces total amount of sleep and actually makes people antsy This suggests that animals are more likely to bite during a full moon. And as for how it relates to investor performance is another matter altogether. Perhaps a "good mood" actually renders them less risk-averse and results in poor buys. Anyhow, this is just my OR conjecture; the larger point is that nothing about this appears to demand a supernatural explanation and, most importantly, the authors do not assert one.

Finally, I have said many times that if astrological claims did wind up in reputable sources we could use them. Marskell 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this is clearly astrology even though the authors do not state it. Would be nice if others could comment. Aquirata 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is your opinion and we are not in the business of asserting opinion. I take it too, that you find the above explanation of how science adequately explains it to be insufficient? Marskell 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give a viable scientific explanation. Aquirata 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment is, I understood Marksell's scientific explanation, and I agree with him that this could also be explained without supernatural explanations.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the "scientific explanation?"

That sunlight affects serotonin levels which affect mood, and ordinary psychology to determine how mood affects investors. It's not exactly an absolute explanation, but is a non-supernatural hypothesis, which is much more likely to be true. Besides, I agree with User:Marksell than the authors do not assert a supernatural explanation/ Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not attempting to offer something definitive or claiming specialized knowledge. Aqu's argument was science can't explain this and that it must therefore be astrological even if they don't say. I am saying no on both counts. Marskell 14:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, the sunlight->serotonin->mood doesn't explain the correlation between the Moon's phases and investor behaviour (see above). However, astrology has worked with the assumption that the Moon's phase is related to human behaviour for thousands of years. Since the phenomenon in question cannot be explained by modern science and it is in line with astrological practice, the claim is astrological. Very simple, really. Aquirata 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. You do understand that we aren't allowed to substitute our own suppositions for what our sources actually claim?

Re the more general argument, all you have said is that you find a bio-chemical claim reductionist (reductionism isn't in itself a bad thing) and offered no counter argument. You've stated "the phenomenon in question cannot be explained by modern science" as a blanket statement twice but have yet to say why. I'm sure there are numerous hormonal and psychological effects caused by the lunar cycle, the seasons, climatic factors, etc. The point is, is that we have no need to reach beyond ordinary, scientific explanation to explicate them. Marskell 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have explained, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough. If your hypothesis is sunlight->serotonin->mood, then full Moon (lots of reflected sunlight) should = good mood, new Moon (no sunlight) should = bad mood. This is not supported by observed behaviour of investors as reflected in stock prices (according to research). Hence no viable scientific explanation.

Regarding classification under astrological research, how do you determine what constitutes research into physics, biology, etc? By watching out for those words in research papers? Aquirata 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"How do you determine what constitutes research into physics, biology, etc? By watching out for those words in research papers?" Well, of course! The name and place of publication; the title and speciality of the writer; the field as described in the abstract.

You'll note above I did not claim "full moon should = good mood." Perhaps, it equals a bad mood, an excited mood, whatever. The point again is that its having an effect on mood at all requires no supernatural explanation. Marskell 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the point is that the findings don't support your 'reflected sunlight' explanation. Perhaps you haven't read the papers, so let me quote from Yuan, Zheng & Yu:

"We find strong global evidence that stock returns are lower on days around a full moon than on days around a new moon."

And from Dichev & Janes:

"Throughout the world over the last 30 years, new moon returns are greater than full moon returns on the magnitude of 5% to 10% in annualized returns."

So returns are higher around new Moon, when there is no reflected sunlight. If sunlight makes people happier, then they should be investing more heavily around full Moon, driving up prices. Yet the evidence is to the contrary. Therefore, correlation between Moon phase and behaviour cannot be explained by the amount of reflected sunlight. Therefore, there is no viable scientific explanation. Regardless of the findings and whether they can be explained by "scientific" theories, however, providing an explanation for a previously unexplained effect doesn't invalidate an astrological claim. A viable explanation only strengthens the argument, wouldn't you say? Or once you can explain something "scientifically", do you suddenly take that claim out of astrology and into science?

On the topic of categorisation, let me quote again from Yuan, Zheng & Yu:

"The idea that the moon affects individual moods has ancient roots. The moon has been associated with mental disorder since olden time, as reflected by the word ``lunacy,” which derives from Luna, the Roman goddess of the moon. Popular belief has linked the full moon to such disparate events as epilepsy, somnambulism, crime, suicide, mental illness, disasters, accidents, birthrates, and fertility."

And from Dichev & Janes:

"For thousands of years, there have been widespread beliefs that moon cycles affect human behavior."

Where one of the references is:

"Meridian, William. “Does a Lunar Cycle Affect Market Averages?” Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Certified Market Technician; an abridged version of the paper is available at www.billmeridian.com."

Bill Meridian is a financial astrologer. Sorry, but this is heavy-duty astrology.

I read the second and glanced at the first (twas long). Perhaps I missed it though: can you point me to the sentence where the authors claim an astrological effect? Marskell 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you see it here? "Numerous explanations have been proposed to account for the moon’s effect on the brain: sleep deprivation, heavy nocturnal dew, tidal effect, weather patterns, magnetism and polarization of the moon’s light (Raison, et al 1999; McG. Kelley 1942; Katzeff, 1981)." No astrology near as I can tell—just ordinary, reductionist hypotheses. Marskell 18:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So if an astrological effect can be explained by science, it's science, if it cannot be explained, it's astrology (= pseudoscience)? And I thought scientists wanted astrology explained! Aquirata 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, from a basic epistemological perspective I can understand the catch-22 you're presenting. Three possibilities (as I see it):

• Astrology is bunk.
• Astrology, insofar as given correlations may be correct, is accidentally valid and can be explained by science.
• Astrology is valid via a mechanism/force/whatever that science cannot explain.

What I see you arguing here is 2--that this is "accidentally astrological". But that's just your opinion Aqu. What it amounts to is an expansion of definition to include relatively mundane observation, that is explicable through mundane hypotheses, as evidence of astrology. Who is denying that for thousands of years people have suggested a lunar affect? Not me. But that doesn't make this astrological.

Can you point me to the sentence where the authors claim an astrological effect? I'll try and read the second one tomorrow and look at both more closely, but until you present the sentence, I'm considering this thread over. I don't care if they have Santa Claus in the works cited. They either make an astrological claim or they do not. Marskell 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this any different than planting potatoes or sharpening knives during the new moon? Don't quote me on that, I didn't check the farmers' almanac. Market activity according to the Moon has a very long tradition, and this fits perfectly. Many of the astrological lots developed before modern science relate market activity to the Moon. "Is there Really a Mars Effect" by Gauquelin does not mention astrology. Modern Transits by Lois Rodden does not mention astrology anywhere in her book. Piper Almanac 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then neither should we! I'm kind of surprised by this, actually. Atrributing astrology as the cause of stock returns being lower on days around a full moon clearly looks like violataing WP:OR. If the authors do not attribute this to astrology, then neither should we, as that claim is not verifiable (as per WP:V).Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will have a full explanation of this later, but it's a little involved and can't be put in two sentences. Aquirata 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why "many scientists" and not "scientific community"?

Why say "many scientists" and not the "scientific community"? in Critics, including many scientists, consider it a pseudoscience. Aquirata says only this can be sourced as discussed before. Was this discussed before (I can't find it in the archives)? Besides, I think it can be sourced. This link which is already present, from the [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm The National Science Foundation] can be used a as a source for that statement.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The .gov link is as large an umbrella to describe scientific opinion as you'll find. Marskell 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To make a long story short, only a comprehensive opinion survey of the scientific community will support your statement. The NSF is funding the scientific community but cannot be said to represent their collective opinion, which is non-existent. The fact is that most scientists don't have an opinion on astrology. The vocal minority within the scientific community appears to believe it's 'pseudoscience'. They use every opportunity to further their political interests by denigrating a discipline they haven't studied or practiced and therefore don't understand. Some have called these people 'pseudo-skeptics' because they are 1) extremely biased therefore cannot be called skeptics, and 2) using pseudoscientific practices to label astrology (i.e. they come to conclusions without applying the scientific method). So 'many scientists' can be supported and reflects the actual state of affairs; 'scientific community' cannot be supported and distorts facts. Aquirata 11:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, we've been through this and you have come to the same conclusion or at least accepted this as a workable compromise from your vantage point. Are you proposing to go back and battle this out once again? Aquirata 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I can accept "many scientists" ahead of reverting, yes, though I thought the compomise wording was "the scientific community, where it has commented". What's hard here is that your analysis basically excludes any source for the claim. Policy doesn't ask us for "a comprehensive opinion survey of the scientific community" and I've never seen the bar set like this on other pages. No one is asking you for such to source astrological claims. Marskell 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the same level of sources I have been asked to find too, in order to say something about any community, it seems we need to have a survey. Actually, even calling it a community would be assuming they have similar opinions, methods, or something else; and thus, we cannot even do that (if we follow Aq.'s logic). My claim is that when the scientific community uses methods which astrologers spurn, have reached results which contradict astrologer's basic claim and a lot of scientist have spoken out against astrology (and none have spoken for) we can pretty much claim that "the scientific community" has a general opinion in the matter. Lundse 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Most opinions or claims by astrologers are qualified in the article. What I object to is the usage of "the scientific community" in a blanket statement. The scientific community as a whole is not as ignorant as that sentence would imply. I am actually arguing for the scientific side here if you noticed. I think it's quite degrading to the scientists to say that virtually every one of them states astrology is pseudoscience due to the points I have made above.

"The scientific community, where it has commented" is fine; "many scientists" is essentially the same but simpler. Aquirata 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon Node & Mars-Vesta

Don't forget the Mars-Vesta cycle, the Moon Node periodicity, and the Jupiter-Saturn cycle regarding business & the stock market. But I'll defer to Bill Meridian, Grace Morris, & Norm Winski regarding Financial Astrology. Andrew Homer 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Work related injuries

Has the work related injuries bit been published anywhere but the woman's own page [11]? Marskell 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here:

• Kosmos, XXII [3], 1993, 21-30
• [12]
• [13]

It's a PhD thesis, by the way. Aquirata 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean published published, not just posted on an enthusiast's site. Marskell 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? It was published in Kosmos, a quarterly by ISAR (now called ISAR's International Astrologer). Aquirata 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the first wasn't linked and the other two are just enthusiast sites packaged in different ways. ISAR then: that would be the one that claims to be "the most prestigious international organization in the world!"[14]? Marskell 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The two links are not "enthusiast sites," but that's beside the point. ISAR may be the most prestigious international organization in the world, they are certainly one of the leading organisations - in the field of astrology, that is. Aquirata 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for "in astrology" after "most prestigious" but couldn't find it. Someone should send them a letter—too much hubris and people might think them cranks.

Anyhow, this has gone from not acceptable (the self-published page, which you should replace) to borderline. Perhaps I'll start a thread on V or something. Marskell 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But astrology is a small world, so they just made the assumption that only "cranks" read those pages and so no clarification is needed. :)

I will change the sourcing. Aquirata 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)