Talk:Astrology/Archive 15

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

"Stars" as a general or specific term?

I don't know the history of this very well, but when astrology began, many ages ago, weren't all the heavenly bodies (stars and planets), except the sun and moon, called "stars" and considered to be the same thing? If that's the case, it should be explained that the word "stars" is being used in a very general manner, and not specifically for what we now (since the 2006 redefining of "planets") consider "stars". -- Brangifer (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, although the word "star" specifically isn't much use for pre-anglophone history, and I'd argue that even the earliest records of stargazing (babylonian, chinese, &c) make a distinction between "the 5 lights that move around relative to other lights in the night sky" and "all the other thousands of fixed lights in the night sky" bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're no doubt right about that. The ancients didn't have TV or artificial lighting to turn the night into day, and sitting outside under the stars was a common pastime. I'm sure they used lots of time observing the heavens and many knew more about the heavens than your ordinary man nowadays. They knew where things were, what their normal movements were, and observed anything odd that was happening. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Astronomy" isn't just about the stars either. And "star gazing" includes watching the planets. Greek astêr meant a light in the sky, not a ball of gas supported by internal fusion. Sure the planets were different: they were the ones that moved. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so how can we incorporate these varied historical linguistic insights into a less recentist article? Ocaasi (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inserting here a comment I posted in the above section "Ironically ..." in answer to another point:

The Latin astro comes from the the Greek aster which was used to refer to the stars/luminous celestial bodies. We don’t need a citation for that because it’s an uncontroversial derivation. Up to the 18th century astronomers and astrologers frequently used the word star, or 'stellar' in reference to the planets (just as they used the word 'planet' in reference to the Sun). That’s why Latin titles of older astrology works such as De judiciis astrorum were translated into English as ‘Judgment of the Stars’. The Greek word planet was used to distinguish the 'moving stars’ from the 'fixed stars', as I explained when I inserted the text for footnote 3: “The Greek phrase plánētes astéres 'wandering stars' was applied to the seven visible planets (including the Sun and Moon) because of their observable movement against the 'fixed stars'”. In ancient astrology the planets were also referred to as “the star of Mars”, the “star of Saturn”, etc. So the word astrology is not a misnomer because it is historically applicable to both 'fixed stars' and the planets as 'moving stars'. Costmary (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs)

I agree there is nothing wrong with the name. But when even the astrologers you provide in your sources believe it's a misnomer, there is a real misunderstanding here that needs to be addressed. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See my post of 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC) which answers this Costmary (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bravo!

Excellent new introduction, folks. Up next: redefining chemistry as "a material science founded on the notions of Egyptian alchemy", and introducing Medicine as "the science and art of healing, which traces back to the suspicion that your poop makes you depressed." (Humorism is not to be confused with WP:HUMOR, even if my reference to the former qualifies as a fine example of the latter. *G*) Anyway, we'll save the easiest work for last; we won't have any problems defining the universe in etiological terms, because we all know exactly Who came up with the idea, and we all can agree on what was on His mind back then (hehehehe). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you meant by that. Was that sarcasm mixed with praise or just sarcasm? Ocaasi (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The new introduction has become an offspring only a mother could love :) There is complete certainty that astrology is by definition a false science. There is also by definition only one star, the Sun, in Western astrology. To heck with the fact that the constellations that historically define the signs of the zodiac are full of stars. Of course, traditional sidereal forms of astrology do not matter in this regard, hence the reference to only Western astrology here. In this article, one can only wonder where sarcasm ends and ridicule begins. Erekint (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, your suggestions are welcome, especially with regards to regional/branch differences. But the pseudoscience issue is well sourced and pretty diplomatically handled. Is there a factual inaccuracy you can correct? Ocaasi (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can attest to a branch of astrology that uses the stars, please give us a ref. The constellations do not define the signs in western astrology. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi: It was sarcasm--or, at least, that's what it was supposed to be. The sarcasm evidently wasn't all that "good"; but it was good-faith, as I was attempting to use WP:HUMOR in order to "show" a problem (as I see it) which could prove tedious to "tell" about in all its dreary detail. Plus, I figured that it might be nice to splash a little sunshine into one of Wikipedia's stormier seas of article discussion; but I do apologize if I've only made the waters murkier. I'll try to clarify the matter very soon, opting now to "tell" the things that I had tried to "show" above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem Cosmic. I support all attempts at sarcasm on the internet, especially where they fail miserably. See, sarcasm. I'm glad the intro is looking better! Also, don't take the spaghetti monster's name in vain. Everyone knows spaghetti monsters don't imbibe. Ocaasi (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some see astrology as predictive, with the planets controlling human destiny; others see it as determinative, with the planets determining our personalities and who we are." —That's not really what those words mean. The first would be "determinative"; I can't think of the proper word for the second. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Either one is "determinative." Both "controlling human destiny" and "determining our personalities" mean the positions of the stars determine something about us. Mystylplx (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about s.t. like "Some believe the planets control fate / human destiny directly, others that they influence us by determining our personalities." — kwami (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the discussion that is supposed to be continued, because it didn't get folded up and therefore conforms to "policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion"? It's not just the appalling ignorance of the vast history and literature of astrology that is very troubling about the Wikipedia article and discussion, but the patronizing and irrational vehemence against it that infects the article and is the much accepted mode of discussion. Why is this? Doesn't anyone else see this as a recipe for extreme misrepresentation and the intellectual disaster the article has become? Apagogeron (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove straw man and authoritarian arguments

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion

The Wikipedia Astrology article is riddled with straw man arguments and authoritarian decrees and the Talk page is filled with silly discussions over these rational fallacies. Editors should remove these fallacies.

Astrology is a very old discipline and unfortunately it has outgrown, and is now misrepresented by, some of its own language. In a similar way, the branch of astrology that became meteorology is a misrepresentation because it is not the study of meteors, but rather of weather. The use of ancient terminology leads people who are ignorant of astrology, or people who are just deviant literalists, to accuse astrology of having pseudoscientific claims. For these people to set up these terms as straw men and require astrologers to defend the literal meanings is a fallacy that violates the rational criterion of relevance.

The study of astrology connects the modern world with ancient traditions. The word "astrology" derives from "star" but astrologers will study whatever celestial bodies they wish to study, just like the meteorologists are not confined to the study of meteors to forecast weather. That astrology must only study "stars" is irrelevant and to argue over this is silly and irrational.

To insist that astrology is a pre-Copernican view that equates to belief in a flat Earth, is ignorant. Astrology uses a relativistic frame of reference that no scientist would argue with. It maps the celestial bodies relative to the person or thing to be studied, which is placed at the center, and this is neither the Sun nor the Earth. What we know as stars have always been stars. All other bodies in the solar system, including the Sun and Moon, are considered to be, for want of a better word, "planets" of the person or subject to be studied because these bodies all move in some interesting fashion around the subject, which is at the center.

Imagine now that you are at the center of your own universe and the planets and stars around you are your planets and your stars, because this is your universe. If you think this sounds New Age, then you've come to the right place. This "new" point of view is also very ancient. To say that astrology is Earth-centered, or must not call the Sun and Moon planets, is a straw man designed to start a silly, irrational argument.

The same goes for the difference between the signs and some of the constellations that have the same names. Astrologers have known about this and made their choice more than 2000 years ago. Signs are measured from the vernal point and are unrelated to the starry constellations. To confuse signs with constellations because of the similarity in names is silly and irrational.

Planetary or stellar "influence" is not a causal effect emanating from the planets and stars that astrologers directly measure. Everyone knows that the meanings in astrology are inferred from empirical observations, despite the mechanical implications of word "influence." Similarly, in some new sciences ordinary words fail or are used metaphorically and even whimsically. To argue over the semantics of this is silly and irrational.

The "symbolic language" of astrology is not a mystery or ambiguous. It has followed the same development that any syntactical representation of symbols such as used in chemistry, mathematics, or any written language uses and the results can be seen and understood in any astrology text. To argue over the analysis of "symbols" or the speaker of a "language" with regard to astrology is a straw man and is silly and irrational.

Astrological "rulership" does not mean that the planets manipulate people by remote control. "Rulership" may not be the best word, but it is the tradition and astrologers know what it means. It is a non-judgmental observation of one property or thing regarded as a set that typically indicates the presence of other properties or things as members, often theorized as a correlation. To argue over the literal meaning of “rulership” is silly and irrational.

These are all straw man and red herring fallacies and editors should not be drawn into semantic arguments and silly, irrational debates over them.

Throughout the Wikipedia astrology article, astrology is conceptually misrepresented as being some sort of "alternative" to science, as an absolutist, black and white, either-or situation of conflicting paradigms battling for scientific supremacy. This is not the case. Like other disciplines adopted by New Age thinkers, astrology is "complementary." It fills in the voids left by conventional, more scientific approaches, which are nonetheless necessary for healthy living and informed perspectives.To characterize modern science and astrology as adversarial is again a straw man designed to start a silly irrational argument.

Over the course of history, astrology has had its own reforms and revolutions in thought. Paracelsus understood astrology as a question of "correlations" between macroscopic and microscopic worlds rather than direct physical influences, because no causal connections could be determined. This was a radical theory at the time, but gradually the idea of non-causal correlations became adopted. Francis Bacon added to this with his suggestion that the stars "rather incline than compel." This represented a puzzle for astrologers and scientists interested in astrology to figure out and evaluate. The methods by which correlational effects can be mathematically measured and weighed to show inclinations is relatively new in astrology, and have been statistically demonstrated in falsifiable tests only within the past 30 years.

The Science section of the article is filled with a succession of the subjective beliefs of one scientist after another, from al-Farabi to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It directly emulates the controversial 1975 Humanist "Objections to Astrology" article signed by 186 leading scientists. Astronomer Carl Sagan objected to the "Objections" article because the scientists argued solely on the basis of their own authority and this gives the impression of closed mindedness. Physicist Paul Feyerabend compared the “Objections” article to the Malleus Maleficarum, which launched the Inquisition, only he regarded it as being worse.

These claims by notable scientists against astrology that Wikipedia has listed are more of the same thing. They are not scientific at all, but are arguments from authority and arguments from ignorance by people who have not studied astrology and have no idea what they are talking about. Editors should be mindful of these fallacies and allow only factual objective information where science is concerned.

To declare that astrology is a pseudoscience from the outset is detrimental to legitimate scientists who may wish to investigate it. Scientists have a right to study and test whatever they want and to challenge other scientists based on their evaluations and discoveries. Because of recent empirical assessments, in particular the reversal of the renowned 1985 Shawn Carlson study, which in 2009 was found to support astrology, and improved methods of ranking and rating data, there is an expectation of further scientific advances in astrology.

No one, least of all astrologers, expects all of astrology to be amenable to scientific evaluation. For example, there has been a lively proliferation and discourse of psychological theories among astrologers, such as those postulated by Carl Jung. Yet only a few of these theories may ever be scientifically evaluated. The theories of astrology are complex and its practice requires intuition to deal with the combination of many variables. For these reasons and others, such as the scarcity of accurate data and the lack of funding, astrology has not been easy to scientifically investigate. Apagogeron (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree to so many of your comments, and I have found it particularly worrying that so much debate and argument has to be engaged in, in order to correct obvious mistakes and misprepresentations, despite the presentation of reliable facts and sources. It sometimes seems as if there is a deliberate intention to keep this page from presenting good quality information of real relevance. Many of the history references on this page are a mess, with the period of the golden age of Islamic astrolgy described as being the period when astrology was rejected, and many of astrology's most illustrious practitioners being listed as its critical opponents. If my life is long enough I would like to contribute more accurate information using the most trusted and up-to-date academic sources; but at the moment it feels like there has to be an arduous engagement over every little word-amendment. I'm sure that this is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I'm glad I'm not the only one willing to voice the frustration.Costmary (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually astrology is extremely easy to study scientifically. Astrology makes numerous claims that are easy to check. Unfortunately astrology fails all such tests. Mystylplx (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/hpage.htm Hundreds of studies on astrology--it is without doubt a pseudoscience. It's the very definition of pseudoscience. Mystylplx (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx - You are correct, astrological claims are of course falsifiable. Which would you consider to be the best three studies where astrology has failed? If you can't find three, one solid and persuasive test that you feel will back up your claims will do, but please no long list or a link. I am referring to scientific tests rather than anecdotal tales, magic tricks, sun sign tests or tests with a sample size that is so small to enable random results. Robertcurrey (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Apagogeron, touché! You have offered an excellent summary of the editorial thrust of some editors here. For some reaons, they appear to unite around a singular objective: to undermine the credibility of astrology. Why so many agree on the irrational, absolutist and authoritarian arguments is a mystery, but I expect it is explained by their conviction or belief that astrology is a not a worthwhile field of study. To be able to tag astrology here as a pseudoscience seems to be a way to validate this belief. In the process of inserting the many such arguments, a poor article has resulted. Should you have time for it, your writing style appears well suited to improve slightly on the wording of the otherwise good proposal by Costmary and Gary PH for a revised introduction. Erekint (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides the Time Twins study? Another example is The Love Signs study which looked at 27 million couples to see if astrology's predictions about 'compatibility' played out in the real world. They looked at conjunctions, sextiles, trines and of course sun signs and found none of the predictions made by astrology bore out. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/s-love2.htm There are literally hundreds more. Astrology is just so easy to study, which is why it's been studied so much. Mystylplx (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mystylplx for responding. If your sun sign test is the best example you can provide, you reaffirm the point that there are no valid scientific studies where astrology has failed. I asked for a test that was not flawed or based on sun signs alone. I can only assume that you could not find such a test or you don’t know the difference between astrology as a field and sun sign astrology which is a quasi-astrology originating from the 1930s that people read in the daily newspapers. If you don’t know the difference, consider studying astrology before commenting or attempting to edit this page.

There are many problems with sun sign testing (which is based on the estimated sun sign from the date of birth only), besides the fact that it is not testing astrology. With your example the claims of sun sign compatibility come from sun sign columns and books. However, astrologers analyze compatibility by a series of factors and for example place more emphasis on Venus, Mars, the Moon, the Ascendant and other planets ahead of the Sun in this context. The Sachs test that you cited actually claimed many significant findings based on sun sign data – however like most of these type of tests, it has serious sampling errors and needs a full re-analysis. It is not held up as evidence for astrology by astrologers and given the flaws should not be used by sceptics. All sun sign tests risk self-fulfilment and have to eliminate any direct questions from which the subject might guess were connected with his or her sign. This was confirmed by the Mayo-Eysenck test (1978).

I have asked you to substantiate your claim of hundreds of tests where astrology has failed. Please provide me with one as requested before. I doubt that you can as I asked Dr Dean (who you cited) and he was unable to do so. If you are not able to do so, I would suggest that before you make any other comments on this page, you retract your statement. Already your (as yet) unsupported claim and this misinformed reply put your credibility as an authoritative source on astrology into serious question. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You should reread what I wrote. It was not merely a "sun test." However, you should be aware that there's nothing invalid about "sun tests." Astrology makes claims about tendencies of people born under the various sun signs. These claims are easily checked and never turn out to be accurate. And they most certainly aretesting astrology--astrology makes the claims that are being tested. You can't just run away from some of the claims and say, "No, No, those claims astrology makes are not accurate but these (waving vaguely over there) are. Anyway, the three studies I cited, totaling 25 million couples, were not just based on sun signs. Mystylplx (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mystylplx – So if not just sun signs, on what else are these studies based? In fact, these tests aren’t even accurate sun sign tests as the first and last day of each sign involves a changeover – so that without the time of birth, the sun sign is questionable. In addition, the changeover day varies from year to year and in my experience, these huge data studies do not take account of this. But at a minimum, one in seven couples have a suspect match, which in this study equates to 3.8 million people. At this stage most professional statisticians would have discarded this dirty data as a measure of sun signs.

As you will have read the tests showed a significant tendency for people to marry partners of the same sign or the adjacent sign. The post hoc analysis blames this embarrassing blip on recording error but by “excluding from same sign couples those with the same birthday or month of birth.” they managed to smooth the data so it is p=.08 which happens to be fractionally above statistical significance for this type of data at p=.05. If an astrologer cherry-picked the data in this way, there would be uproar. But frankly no one bothers with these studies because they are risible even to critics of astrology.

What Dean neatly avoided and should have explained is that, as most astrologers and some astronomers know Venus is never more than 46.3° from the Sun on the ecliptic (as seen from Earth). This means that couples with the same or adjoining signs are likely to have Venus conjunct their partner’s Sun, Venus or Mercury. Now if you look at any textbook on astrology (not a Sun Sign column), you will find that for over two thousand years the planet Venus (and not the Sun) was and is associated with love.

It should be quite obvious to anyone familiar with astrology that Dean is selective in presenting his data. He is after all part of the CSI (ex CSICOP) machine that is financed by publications that promote the beliefs of uncritical followers (most of whom are not real scientists). I don’t disagree with their views on all subjects, but with astrology, they have used their extensive funds to provide more proof than disproof! So I say bless them! By citing this study, you have brought to our attention yet another classic straw man argument to which Apagogeron was referring in this thread. Dean cites Russell Grant and Mystic Meg who are easy targets and media entertainment personalities. It’s rather like using an agony aunt column to debunk the entire field of psychology. There is a Wiki page on sun sign astrology and this is where your comments should be addressed. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't perform our own analyses of studies. We use WP:secondary sources which analyze them and report what they conclude. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That was an interesting analysis, talk, but unfortunately it's all WP:OR. I could point out all the flaws in your analysis, but that would also be WP:OR, so let's skip it and stick to WP:RS. I gave three published peer reviewed studies totaling 27 million people. It should also be noted that a mere 30 years ago astrologers were touting sun signs as the most important aspect of astrology. Linda Goodman went so far as to claim sun signs explain 90% of a persons personality, etc. As more studies on the predictions made by sun signs come in astrologers are moving away and now almost sound as if sun signs are completely meaningless. The fact remains that astrologers make testable predictions based on sun signs alone and if testing those predictions means nothing then the predictions mean nothing. Mystylplx (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun-sign astrology has long been disowned by serious astrologers. In an unregulated field like astrology, a number of theories have appeared in the mass media, gaining a brief spell of popularity. The ascendant-based horoscopic astrology is where it's at. All of the astrology in the east is this type of astrology. In a world where each person in unique, only this type of astrology can begin to catch the subtle differences between horoscopes with a close rising and Moon degree. Research based on sun-sign logic is as flawed as that type of astrology. Perhaps the article should say something to this effect? Erekint (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying sun signs should be removed from astrology completely? Because if they have any impact at all then that impact can be tested. It's as if I said "Tall people tend to have more knee problems." We all know there are other factors that influence whether someone has knee problems (level of exercise, diet, genetics, etc) and that not all tall people will have knee problems. But that doesn't take away the fact that if we tested a bunch of tall people versus average height people and found neither group had more knee problems than the other then the statement "tall people have more knee problems" would be falsified. Claims made for sun signs are like that. Yes there are all kinds of other factors in play, but if a large group of Pisces are no more 'pisces-like' than a random control then it means the claims for what Pisces are supposed to be like are completely merit-less. Mystylplx (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A test of a bad chemistry hypothesis does not invalidate chemistry as a field of inquiry. Likewise, a test of the broad brush hypothesis of sun sign astrology doesn't invalidate astrology as a field of inquiry. Sun sign astrology is controversial, even among astrologers. At minimum it seems a stretch for this type of astrology to capture the uniqueness of individuals born a few minutes apart. If this is the scientific research you want to cite as disproving astrology, it needs to be brought out clearly in the article that it refers to only sun sign astrology. Erekint (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mystylplx, you actually cited Dean’s interpretation (unpublished outside the web) of 3 sun sign studies of which only one was published in a peer reviewed journal, Correlation and this study showed significant correlations between sun signs. So your best study from the claimed hundreds is one that appears to support astrology even at the sun sign level. Even so it’s not a study that I would cite in this page as I have superior and relevant studies that support astrology using the whole chart. Isolated use of sun signs is a recent (1930) popular phenomenon and was never part of traditional astrology (from ca.5000 BCE) and not part of mainstream astrology. It’s not that the sun sign is meaningless; it’s just that it works better within the chart. With your medical example, it would be like extracting the patient’s heart and wondering why it wasn’t beating like it did inside the body. This analogy is by way of explanation rather than a literal argument. Misquoting sun sign astrologers about sun signs is not relevant to this page and continually using the known limitations of sun sign astrology as a straw man argument gives the impression that your insistence that astrology is a pseudoscience (like many other sceptics) is based on a fundamental misconception of astrology. Robertcurrey (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's abstracts of 91 studies, most of them empirical, from four astrological research journals. There are 37 abstracts from Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology 1981-2007 published by the British Astrological Association, 22 from the now defunct Astro-Psychological Problems 1982-1995 published by Francoise Gauquelin in France and (in 1989-1990) by the National Council for Geocosmic Research in the USA, 18 from Astrologie in Onderzoek [Astrology under Scrutiny] 1986-2003 published by Wout Heukelom in the Netherlands, including its precursors 1977-1985 published by NVWOA the Dutch Society for Scientific Research into Astrology, and 14 from Kosmos 1978-1994 published by ISAR, the USA-based International Society for Astrological Research. At the time the first three journals were the world's only peer-review astrological journals devoted to scientific research, whereas Kosmos was more an astrological journal than a scientific research journal, hence the fewer abstracts. The abstracts are comprehensive, averaging 270 words (range 80 to 950), and are annotated with later information where necessary. Most are from 1980-2000 when scientific research into astrology was at its peak. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/d-rese2.htm

Notice most of these are not "just" sun sign studies. Mystylplx (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx you said it was “so easy” to make these studies. So RobertCurrey asked you to support your comment by being specific and offering just three strong studies that prove your point. He merely requested that you refer to “scientific tests rather than anecdotal tales, magic tricks, sun sign tests or tests with a sample size that is so small to enable random results.” I think you have only managed to point to one, which was a sun sign test, and then you have reverted to offering a link which gives a lot of information that I don’t think you understand. It was a simple enough request for you to substantiate your argument by specific reference. This is the academic standard so you need to do this. Otherwise you can't expect your comment to be taken any more seriously than an astrologer's claim to have hundreds of examples where astrology was shown to work. It will be interesting for the rest of us to see how the details of these studies bear up to close examinationGary PH (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did. 94 studies I've cited so far, but you guys just keep amateurishly claiming they aren't valid. It's easy enough to deny the facts if you refuse to open your eyes. Mystylplx (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gary PH. So far, the first test cited (though only sun sign astrology) shows significant correlations that favour astrology. Mystylplx, I will give you a second chance to back-up your claim (a cherished belief held by most sceptics). Since I can only deal with one study at a time, please select from these 91 mostly empirical tests, what you would consider to be the best test published in a peer reviewed journal that is not flawed and has a reasonable sample size where astrology has failed? Please read the test carefully to ensure that it is strong enough for you to back up your claim that there are hundreds of tests where astrology has failed on which you base your outdated belief that astrology is a pseudoscience. Robertcurrey (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The first test only 'seemed' to favor astrology

...cutoff level for significance is about p = 0.13, contrary to his claim of p = 0.05 (page 44), which means that in each case 144 x 0.13 = 18.7 pairings are expected to be individually significant by chance alone. Overall there are 25 + 13 = 38 individually significant pairings vs 2 x 18.7 = 37.4 expected by chance alone, which means that Sachs's results actually provide no support whatever for sun sign effects.

In either case your amateur analysis holds no water at wikipedia. See WP:OR And WP:secondary sources. You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia requires more than that. Mystylplx (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong test! - Sachs' compilation was never peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. I have already pointed out the data flaws but this time I will let Dean do the talking:

But my criticism has been confirmed by Suitbert Ertel's work [see next article below], in which case the entire Sachs' study must be dismissed as invalid.

Continuing to dwell on fatally flawed sun sign tests as a straw man argument seems like a way of dodging my challenge to you. Robertcurrey (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave you 94 studies that met the criteria of your challenge. Someones dodging, but it aint me. Mystylplx (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I only asked for one, but since you insist on standing by all 94 tests, I trust you won't renege when I cite some of them. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed introduction - does it have consensus or is it breaking policy?

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion

Is the proposed introduction to astrology breaking Wikipedia policy? See specifically comments after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#.28editing_break.29 Costmary (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change the current introduction, which reads:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies can explain or predict fate, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[1][2] The primary bodies are the sun, moon, and planets; although astrology is commonly characterized as "reading the stars", the stars actually play a minor role in Western astrology.[3][4] The main focus is on the placement of the seven planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system does allow reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and mathematical points of interest. As a craft, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, and divination. It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.

To this:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[1][2] Focus is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars, visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest.[3] Astrology combines information from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.[4] Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[4] But astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been debated, as has its limits of reliability in practical application. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by the age of reason. It continues to maintain widespread interest and popular support however, and whilst Western nations look upon astrology as a pseudoscience[citation] Eastern nations tend towards the view that its 4000 year heritage entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling].

4] Kassel, L. ‘Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (2010) 67-69.

The latter appears to have the consensus of opinion (see comments after link above - or before link for preceding discussions on this issue); but one editor claims that this would break Wikipedia policy by saying "considered a psueudoscience" rather than "is a pseudoscience". Others have argued this is not so and that the Wiki policy on this states "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science" (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories) (not the case here) and "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience). (not the case here).

I have been active in the discussion but will drop out for a while to give room for other opinions. Since editors here are struggling to reach firm agreement, it would help a lot if other experienced Wiki editors would share their views on this.Costmary (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First, let me declare my hand, I have been a professional astrologer for thirty years.

This new description proposed is technically accurate from an astrological and historical point of view and certainly superior to the previous description. However, describing astrology as a pseudoscience is now out of date and only supported by dedicated sceptics. This is not only because most practicing astrologers no longer claim to be scientists, while academic papers published within the last few years are showing increasing scientific support for astrology. At present I know of no scientific tests that are not fatally flawed where astrology has been shown to have failed.

In the thread above entitled “Remove straw man and authoritarian arguments” I have challenged a claim by Mystylplx who agrees that astrology is falsifiable and claims that there are hundreds of studies where astrology has failed. I would be interested to see the response.

Consider also a thread that I recently started “Where is Dean’s Time Twin Test?” Despite being promised in 2003 and cited under Research in the Astrology listing in Wikipedia, Dean’s study has not been published and he now claims to be adding new data in what appears to be a new test. It should have never been cited and certainly not before the test is peer reviewed and published in full. In addition, the other test cited in the Research section by Carlson (1985) published by Nature now has been shown to have serious sampling errors in the data that disguised the results. A statistical review by Professor Ertel (2009) as yet unrefuted, shows that astrologers performed in a blind test to a level (p=.037) that cannot be explained by chance. This reversal needs to be stated in this section. Robertcurrey (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Costmary and Robertcurrey are correct. Having the mention of "pseudoscience" in the lead section would violate WP:FRINGE/PS. "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views."

No one is suggesting the claim of pseudoscience is not significant in this article on astrology, but that claim should not be the main focus or the lead-in to the article, which would be an "obfuscation." To dismiss astrology in such a way, before presenting the available falsifiable, positive findings in astrology, which have stood for more than 20 years is an "obfuscation." To dismiss astrology outright at the beginning is detrimental to the scientists who are seeking funding to examine astrology and resolve the issues. Because critics stake their claim entirely on scientific studies, this is also an obfuscation of their own interests. Mention of pseudoscience should be confined to the Science section and should be edited for NPOV. Apagogeron (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the pseudoscientific aspects be downplayed in order to give a misleadingly positive impression of astrology. We present pseudoscience as pseudoscience up front. It's not currently the main focus of the lede, merely prominent in the lede, so your argument there is spurious. Check the archives: we've been over this again and again. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.2

As urged by Erekint, if the "To this:" version above represents a consensus, then I would support it, with just a few edits. This would result in the following introductory section:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[1][2] Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars, visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest.[3]

Astrology combines information and principles from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.[4] Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[4]

However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical applications. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers.

In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although opinion in Western countries tends to regard astrology as a pseudoscience[citation], opinion in Eastern countries considers that the 4000 year heritage of astrology entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling].

Further collaboration to v.2 is invited, though care must be taken that the pseudoscience claim, and similar tone, does not overwhelm or "obfuscate" the mainstream thrust of the article, in violation of WP:FRINGE/PS. The main thrust should be the revitalization of astrology and its leading place in New Age thinking. Astrologers are keen observers of social, economic, political, and spiritual change and they sustain a lively discourse in history, philosophy, psychology, human relationships, health, science, and the transformation of cultural beliefs. As editors, we must allow the Astrology article to accurately reflect the rightful place of astrology in history, culture, and in New Age thinking, and this includes all recent contributions made on behalf of its own historical and scientific research.

I am not an astrologer myself, but have an active interest in the subject. BTW I am very interested if Mystylplx will take up Robertcurrey's challenge and cite a specific study or two that has scientifically refuted astrology, as claimed. This should prove to be quite interesting and potentially enlightening. Apagogeron (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose The summary is factually inaccurate in several places, though there are improvements in a few others. Those improvements can (greater historical context) can be added to the current version of the lede. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The proposed introduction represents a significant improvement. However, mention of the reliance of horoscopic astrology systems on signs and houses is needed in the first paragraph, as well as brief mention of other traditions:

"Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[1][2] Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with sometimes use of fixed stars, visible phenomena such as comets, or mathematically calculated astronomical points.[3] In horoscopic astrology systems, interpretation of planetary influences relies on reference to signs and houses, based either on visible constellations or astronomical calcucalation. In Meso-American and Chinese astrology traditions, unique sign characteristics are attributed to astronomically calculated time periods."

In the 4th paragraph, the age of eastern astrology systems, is debated, but it would be safe to say:

"In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although opinion in Western countries tends to regard astrology as a pseudoscience[citation], opinion in Eastern countries considers that the ancient heritage of astrology, going back to the Vedic age [citation], entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling]."

I sincerely hope this is an improvement and does not muddy up the water unnecessarily. Erekint (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In your 4th paragraph, the first two lines are good, though they are provincial and require support, and the word "philosophy" is dubious. (Let's see what the refs have to say.) The 3rd sentence, however, is false in nearly every claim, and furthermore violates WP consensus. I'm afraid that discussion on this talk page will not be enough to get it in the article. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

kwami, the sentence is correct to my understanding, so please be specfic about claims you believe to be false, so we may agree on improvements. Erekint (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support." -- only in the West, and some Western-influenced cultures. Not true as a general statement.

"Although opinion in Western countries tends to regard astrology as a pseudoscience" -- false: it simply is a pseudoscience. You do not say whose opinion (that of astrologers?}

"opinion in Eastern countries considers that the ancient heritage of astrology ... entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge" -- false in that Indian scientists say it's a pseudoscience too, though perhaps true that the general public has more respect for it. But the Indian court ruling is an invalid citation, as it merely says that universities can decide their own curricula.

"going back to the Vedic age" -- why should we cite public opinion on a historical claim? We should have historical citations, and they say it only goes back to the Greeks. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Progress is being made in improving this article. As regards paragraph 4, the Vedic age issue is out although there is substantial evidence of proto astrology in India preceeding Greek horoscopic astrology. While disappointing to see Pseudoscience mentioned in the lead a compromise wording is now on the table. The resurgence issue could be qualified but it adds limited value. The Court decision is an important validation of the status of astrology in India. Other citations to confirm this point would be welcome. Erekint (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not going to water down its description as pseudoscience. We don't compromise with the Flat-Earth folks by saying "the Earth is generally believed to be round". If you want to do that, get consensus from the pseudoscience folks.

The Indian court case is not validation. It only said that universities can decide their own curricula. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

kwami, the statement "Astrology is Pseudoscience" is not a material fact. It is an assessment, about which there is plenty of uncertainty and disagreement. Soon Mystyplx will present the claimed scientific research disproving astrology. We will then be in a better position to assess the merits of both sides of the debate. We disagree on the meaning of the court case as an indication of the degree of acceptance of astrology in the east. Finally, we may have to agree to disagree and leave it at that while wording the article accordingly. As it stands, it is unacceptable to a number of editors. The proposed reformulation is an attempt to bridge the gap. Erekint (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't bridge the gap between truth and fiction and present the result as truth. If you want to downplay the identification of astrology as pseudoscience, you're going to need more than the support of a few astrologers on this talk page. 'Consensus' refers to WP, not just to the page in question. As for the court case, we don't interpret sources, we report them. See WP:SYNTH. — kwami (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It certainly needs to be listed as a pseudoscience. No use obscuring the facts just because some people are offended. This is an encyclopedia, not a nursery book. Mystylplx (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Mystylplx I would also like to see you respond to Robertcurrey. Facts are established by looking at specific details, not by making blanket comments unsupported by academic sources. Note how everyone is claiming to present accurate information here; you are not alone in that and we must factor in that there is disagreement on what the “facts” are. At this point, I am happy with the wording I suggested or the amendment proposed by Apagogeron. Since both make reference to the pseudoscience argument at the start of the article, there are no grounds to complain that it needs more forceful attention.

I did respond to Robert. Mystylplx (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, whilst I see what you are trying to do, as it stands I think your proposal introduces some problems, and takes away some of the clarity of the earlier suggestions of myself and Apagogeron. It may not be wise to get too technical in the opening comments, and there are some astrologers who don’t use signs or houses, adopting what they believe is a more Kepler-style astrology. The reference to the Vedic age is problematic, because it won’t be clear what that is, and it could cause controversy. The Indian Supreme Court ruling specified stated that astrology was trusted because of its “4000 year history” so whilst astrology’s true age is highly debatable, at least we are presenting information that was used in the Court ruling, backed up by the citation to the ruling. But these are minor matters andI am happy to go with the majority opinion if others feel differently.Gary PH (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary PH, the 4th paragraph is fine as originally presented. For completeness, the most prevalent form of astrology today, horoscopic astrology, which relies on signs and houses, should be mentioned in the lead. An improved formulation of this point would be welcome.Erekint (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, regarding your statement: "In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support." [You say] -- only in the West, and some Western-influenced cultures. Not true as a general statement.

Kwami, it would be incorrect to say that astrology has regained interest only in the West, as you suggest. Many Westerners travel to India to study astrology. Western astrology has also gained a passionate following in China. http://astrologynewsservice.com/newsmaker-interviews/students-wild-about-astrology-on-mainland-china/ I think this should stand as is.

Kwami, your other statement: "Although opinion in Western countries tends to regard astrology as a pseudoscience" [You say] -- false: it simply is a pseudoscience. You do not say whose opinion (that of astrologers?)

Kwami, we can say specifically whose opinion it is by replacing "opinion" with "scientists." I think we should keep "tend to regard" as a better option than "declare," as that would seem rather unscientific. This would make the paragraph you commented on as follows:

"In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although scientists in Western countries tend to regard astrology as a pseudoscience[citation], opinion in Eastern countries considers that the 4000 year heritage of astrology entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling]."

Erekint, regarding horoscopic astrology, a new paragraph can be added after the first paragraph.

A natal chart, also known as a "horoscope," is a map of the universe centered on the "native," which is the subject whose environment is to be studied. It shows the relative positions of the celestial bodies within the signs, houses, and phase aspects, which are the astrological frames of reference used for interpretation.

I think the introduction is coming together. Apagogeron (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To reply specifically to: "Kwami, your other statement: "Although opinion in Western countries tends to regard astrology as a pseudoscience" [You say] -- false: it simply is a pseudoscience. You do not say whose opinion (that of astrologers?)" Facts are not subject to an opinion poll. That's why we look primarily at scientific consensus, not what Randy from Boise thought when surveyed about a subject he heard about on the news one night, let alone one he's actively involved in pushing, like astrologers themselves. For that matter, I doubt even all astrologers swallow what they're spewing, though I'm sure many do. But astrology is a pseudoscience. The vast majority of its claims are not testable, and the vast majority of its practitioners are not even interested in whether the things they're practicing and saying have been rigorously double-blind tested. If testing is being done, great. In the unlikely event it comes back with conclusive positive results that pass peer review, maybe there's a case for revisiting it. Until and unless that occurs, this is a practice with a facade of "rigor" and "building on what's known", but for which nothing really is known. Court orders or public opinion can't change that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, would you like to propose any changes to the v.2 introduction or are you okay with the consensus? Maybe it's time to collect it together in a v.3. Apagogeron (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Astrology is pretty clearly paradigmatic pseudoscience ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]) and this should be extremely prominent in the lead. This is so uncontroversial it shouldn't need to be discussed. A single court decision in India does not overwhelm the scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.3

I believe the consensus for the introductory section is as follows:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[1][2] Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars, visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest.[3]

A natal chart, also known as a "horoscope," is a map of the universe centered on the "native," which is the subject whose environment is to be studied. It shows the relative positions of the celestial bodies within the signs, houses, and phase aspects, which are the mathematical frames of reference used for astrological interpretation.

Astrology combines information and principles from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.[4] Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[4]

However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical applications. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers.

In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although scientists in Western countries tend to regard astrology as a pseudoscience[citation], opinion in Eastern countries considers that the 4000 year heritage of astrology entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling].

This assumes there is a good citation for the pseudoscience claim. Consensus? Apagogeron (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not even close. The history section is good, though. I think we might profitably add this to the current lede:

"Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical applications. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers. In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy."

Though, for the first part, it was not distinct from astronomy, so we should probably adjust to take that into account, and I'm not so sure about the 'New Age philosophy' bit, but those are minor quibbles. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

kwami, I don't understand your "not even close" comment. Your suggestion is to organize the historical information together into a single paragraph, which should be no problem. We must be close. There is already a reference to astronomy, but do you want to suggest a different wording?

I'm glad you're okay with "New Age philosophy," because there is a need to distinguish the more modern astrological discourses from the older ones. These discourses touch upon areas such as the structures of personality and intelligence, developmental psychology, complementary medicine and health, global economic, political, and environmental historical perspectives, trend fitting and interpretive computer intelligence, and even deeper puzzles relating to quantum observer effects. Astrologers are asking for more and better scientific research, not less. The Enlightenment was great, as I'm sure you agree, but the New Age is even better. Apagogeron (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By "not even close" I meant that, apart from the useful historical notes, and a few minor points I already agreed to pending sources (such as adding 'numerology' etc.), I am opposed to *all* of the proposed changes. The current lede summarizes the situation quite well, apart from being short on history. The proposed lede misrepresents the situation rather badly.

I did not say I'm okay with "New Age philosophy", but that it's a minor matter, by which I mean of confirming the sources. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence, "Astrology combines information and principles from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”. is not supported by the citation. (Assuming citation # 4 is the one intended and not just a glitch from copying and pasting...)Mystylplx (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first half, which we already have, is merely a matter of agreeing on the particular additions. (Is there really any geometry in astrology that wouldn't be included in astronomy? I doubt it, but may be wrong. Is there psychology in the modern sense of the word, but which I mean since the word was invented? I'd like to see a source.) The second half, however, seems dubious. "Traditionally described"? By who? It sounds like a particular person's take. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mystylplx. The "traditionally described" is missing its citation. Its existing one [4] (Brady) seems misplaced. Maybe there's something along the same line from Ann Moyer that can be used, though I don't have that book. I think the contributing editor for that content is unavailable for a few days. We still need a citation for the pseudoscience claim.

The geometry would include some Pythagorean and other concepts involving configurations that are not really a part of normal astronomy. Modern psychology is a topic of lively discourse in astrology today, though it is not so much focused on abnormal cases such as arose when early modern psychology was trying to gain credibility through the medical model. For example, Jung and Eysenck were involved. The Carlson and other tests were based on the CPI or other personality tests. Apagogeron (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, thanks for explaining the situation to Mystylplx. For your question see the citation - ref 4 is correct in my original suggestion, referencing Kassell's article. This demonstrates the definition of John Dee, as given in his preface to Henry Billingsley's translation of Euclid's Elements of geometry (geometry has relevance to the principles of the astrological aspects). The author, Laren Kassell, is a senior lecturer for the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University, so her take is an authorative one. For psychology in astrology see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_astrology. The current lede is not suitable, as this discussion has shown. Can you specify if there is anything you think is being misrepresented in the new suggestion? I don't think there is. If you do can you be specific about what text concerns you, and why? Gary PH (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed those sources, but trust that they're good. As for the rest, I've addressed that point by point above: Apart from adding a useful section on history, all of the substantial changes are detrimental. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think one court case allowing a school to keep teaching astrology is enough to claim it is seen as a "trusted body of knowledge. Mystylplx (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was not able to respond sooner. Astrology is not "considered" a pseudoscience, it is a pseudoscience. The watered-down part should be that anyone "considers" it to have any validity at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between asserting the scientific community knows astrology "is" a pseudoscience or that the scientific community "considers astrology to be" a pseudoscience. The former statement implies the scientific community asserts absolute knowledge about the nature of astrology and the laws of nature involving the solar system, cosmos and human consciousness and experiences. The latter statements suggests the scientific community thinks it's nature is such. Given the yet undiscovered knowledge about the laws of the universe, with all due respect, it would seem only a fool would assert surety beyond doubt in matters of such knowledge.Erekint (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite. And Mystylplx it seems that you are making very lazy statements because you are not checking the sources or being careful with the information. This was not one court case allowing a school to continue teaching astrology, from which we are arguing that astrology can be trusted; it was ruling of the Supreme Court of India that astrology ‘is’ a trusted body of knowledge which has been tried and tested by long experience, which entitles it to maintain its legal status as a respected study. So this is the report of a fact that can be checked against the sources cited. It is not a personal opinion for you to question.

This relates directly to the point made by Seraphimblade. It is a fact that astrology has been, and is, considered a pseudoscience by some. It is only a matter of opinion that you think it ‘is’ a pseudoscience (other’s don’t). We need a citation to show why astrology has been considered to be a pseudoscience, of the same weight of the legal ruling in the Indian Supreme Court. But even then we can only use sensible language, in the same way that we have reported that Eastern nations considers it to be a trusted subject - thus retaining the necessary neutral POV and avoiding language that declares it ‘is’ what the Indian Supreme Court has legally ruled it to be. The proposed lede has done this intelligently and appropriately.Gary PH (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Courts don't get to decide what is and is not science. However, if the court did say astrology is a science you can't keep claiming astrologers don't claim astrology is a science. Mystylplx (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mystylplx and Seraphimblade, the current lede looks OK to me and there is certainly no reason not to call a spade a spade. Astrology is pseudoscience. Court decisions are not relevant in matter of science and the subject has been discussed ad nauseam here, just look at the archive pages. --McSly (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly, it appears that the sceptical editors advancing the claim that scientific studies prove that astrology in general fails in its hypotheses are either basing their claim on poor quality research (admitted by a prominent sceptical researcher) or focus on sun sign astrology, a discredited branch of astrology. The claim that astrology "IS" a pseudoscience has been shown to be an authoritarian, absolutist claim in the face of considerable uncertainty and even proof to the contrary. In fact, as Suitbert Ertel (b. 1932) suggests, it is likely evidence of a "PSEUDO-RATIONALITY" by the sceptics in the scientific community. This is what Ertel had to say on the matter in a preface on the web page for the Tenacious Mars Effect, written in June 20, 1995:

"Secondly, what is wrong with us scientists who kept Gauquelin's claims, brought forward by him since 1955, stifled for four decades? I myself needed the span of 1975 to 1985 to overcome my disgust on imagining that some jelly superstition might have been confirmed by exact statistics. What made me avoid taking more seriously the reports sent out by Gauquelin's Laboratoire des Rhythmes Cosmiques et Psychophysiologiques, an amazing output of his and his first wife's dedicated scientific endeavour? What made the skeptics organizations of Belgium, America, France and the Netherlands, keen guardians of our scientific business, bungle the challenge when faced with planet-birth frequency correlations? I have come to realize that the Mars effect drama might be symptomatic: It might reflect the fallacy of a lurking pseudo-rationality shared by most members of our scientific institutions. In this book I did not pursue the sociological dynamics of our intellectual establishment on a broader scale, as my efforts were devoted to only one sore case at hand. I wanted to get it straight, so I provided the best possible information for our readers as potential jurors. In this pursuit I received invaluable help from co-author Kenneth Irving who will wind up this preface in his own way."[7]

The review of the book by H.J.Eysenck, Ph.D, D.Sc., Professor Emiritus of Psychology University of London, is also insightful.

"The second point of interest is in the detailed presentation of the incredible shenanigans to which the three hostile replication groups resorted when to their horror results of their studies turned out favourable to Gauquelin. These accounts really have to be read, savoured and appreciated by anyone who believes that hard scientists are concerned with facts, truth, evidence. Findings are kept secret and not published when results are not as clear as might be desired, for reasons as discussed in this book. The other interest is related to the reception of the message that the Mars effect is a reality by people with a scientific training. Readers are invited to try it out! Just tell your scientific friends what the facts are. They will squirm, put up all sorts of irrational objections, argue that the facts can’t be true -- and finally refuse to look at the facts! Nothing has changed since Aristotelian astronomers refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to see the four moons of Jupiter. This too is an interesting psychological phenomenon we might well investigate. "[8]

This behaviour of sceptics to obfuscate and suppress evidence in support of astrology is clearly documented in the literature. This perplexing effort of the scientific community to manage knowledge at the margin of their belief systems warrants a separate article on Wikipedia. There is ample material documenting this suppression that can be cited. Erekint (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising to find a couple psychologists who are sympathetic to astrology, especially since their own field is often also called a pseudoscience. The question isn't whether a few people can be found that support the scientific nature of astrology--the question is what the consensus in the scientific community says. Mystylplx (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These men are authorities in this area of research by having carried out and presented the research methodology, data and findings in academic circles as well as writing books about their knowledge spanning decades. By comparison, you have googled some web links to this research as support for your firm conclusion about astrology being a pseudoscience. Sorry to say, your scholarship proves only that Ertel is correct to accuse astrology sceptics of engaging in pseudo-rationality. Ronald Reagan's description of someone as "all hat and no cattle" also comes to mind. Erekint (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan isn't an authority either. Mystylplx (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that authorities do not declare their belief that astrology is pseudoscience. The problem for editors is that this belief is the full extent of the factual information that scientific authorities have offered because the authorities have not backed up their claim with properly evaluated evidence that has withstood normal scientific discourse. As we have seen with the 186 scientists who signed "Objections," when they are interviewed by the media on the facts that support their declaration, these authorities decline and admit they have not studied the subject enough to comment. This is indeed perplexing behavior and indeed worthy of a sort of Socratic inquiry itself. Editors cannot in good conscience accept an argument from authority because it is a rational fallacy.

It is true that early in the 20th century, because of the elegant taxonomy and organization of astrology, some astrologers (e.g. Leo and deVore) referred to astrology as a science. But there was not as much denial of that claim then as there is now when astrologers do not make this claim. By definition, the claim of "science" is a requisite for a belief to be deemed a pseudoscience. Ironically, there are long standing, replicated, falsifiable tests performed by scientists who have been curious about astrology and have found results that are consistent with astrological theory, effects, and interpretations. In virtually all cases, these studies have been funded out of the scientists' own pockets and represent an amateur interest in finding out the truth.

Before any skeptic of these results can legitimately claim that astrology has no place in science, they must first dispose of these positive test by scientifically falsifying them. Instead a number of skeptics have tried to develop counter tests (such as sun sign tests, which no one has yet figured out how to do) that, after normal scientific discourse and assessment, have all turned out to be either replications, in disagreement to astrological theory, or falsified. Skeptics of astrology should not even be creating counter tests because the burden of evidence is on the astrologers not the skeptics, who don't know what they are doing. The burden on the skeptics is to falsify the confirming evidence, which they have not done. Until that point, the evidence is protected as being true science by Popper's criteria, and Popper's criteria has nearly universal consent among scientists.

If the lede is to mention astrology as a pseudoscience, it would be editorially irresponsible to represent argument by authority as a rational truth. What would be editorially responsible would be to qualify this pseudoscience belief of skeptical scientists as being under serious challenge by other scientists who have long-standing, replicated evidence that is contrary to that belief. It is this evidence, not any simple belief, philosophy, or authority, that has been forcing scientists now to rethink their beliefs and assumptions about astrology. Apagogeron (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Apagogeron & Erekint for the background to my comments (which follow). Robertcurrey (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim by many sceptics here is that astrology is still a pseudoscience. I have a problem with this – partly because as an astrologer I find it unnecessarily pejorative but mainly because it is unjustified today. My contention is that astrology has a scientific basis, but that the practice of most but not all astrologers is an art or a craft. I make no claim that astrology is a science, but there are no grounds to claim it is a pseudoscience or that it has no scientific basis. I accept that some people believe some of it to be pseudoscience, but this is not supported by evidence. If anyone wants to claim that their belief is based on fact, then the burden of proof lies with the claimant in this instance.

Essentially pseudoscience is a practice that claims or pretends to be science when it is not. By all accounts these are the main criteria for pseudoscience:

Lack of scientific evidence supporting the theory.
Claims that cannot be falsified and tests that cannot be replicated
Lack of openness to evaluation, refutation or peer review
Lack of progress in the form of innovation, invention and improvement
Failure to address fundamental problems with the theory
Alternative superior explanations that conflict with the theory
Deceptively misrepresented as science.

A field does not have to be permanently labeled this way. Osteopathy is no longer considered a pseudoscience. Today two examples of pseudoscience spring to mind, creationism in the form of Intelligent Design and what was CSICOP which claimed to be scientific but refused to publish opposing views in the Skeptical Inquirer. Both fail to comply with over half the criteria.

First natural astrology has a strong scientific history from the tides: originally from Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos (ca.150), Kepler, Astronomia Nova (1609) and Newton, Principia (1726) et al, the weather: Ding (1982), Cerveny (1997-2010), Varshneya (2010) and earthquakes: Tamrazayan (1968) and Zhao, Han and Li (2000). Lest anyone doubts that these scientific studies fall within the realm of astrology, throughout most of the first millennium BCE, Babylonian astrologers recorded Diaries (Menologies) which systematically contained celestial phenomena along with coinciding mundane information such as weather, water levels in the Euphrates river, prices of commodities, political or unusual events such as earthquakes. Their empirical work led to the world’s first database.

Can claims be falsified or replicated and are they open to peer review and refutation? Few would dispute that natural astrology has a scientific basis, but many would understandably question this of natal astrology. Even in this hard-to-test area dealing with the variables of human nature, there are scientific tests that support natal astrology. Astrologers, scientists and sceptics have conducted many tests under scientific method which have been peer reviewed and published in Journals (Correlation, ISAR and NCGR for example). The data is open to evaluation and the Journals will print refutation and studies by well-known sceptics. From the mid 1950s Michel Gauquelin produced evidence showing correlations between planets and birth (natal astrology) on huge samples in several countries – serious data flaws were found by Suitbert Ertel (1988) and later reassessed by Ertel who confirmed more significant correlations (Irving and Ertel 1996). Gauquelin’s statistically significant Mars effect was replicated by the data (N=1664) collected by three independent sceptical groups in France, Belgium and the USA: (Ertel and Irving 1996 & 1997) & (Rawlins 1981). In addition there have been several other replications in separate studies including Timm & Köberl (1986) & Müller & Menzer (1993). There has to date been no plausible explanation for these highly statistically significant results other than astrology. In addition, experiments such as Vernon Clark (1961) favouring astrology in blind tests were replicated in Marbell (1986) and in a re-analysis of the Carlson Double Blind Astrology Test (Ertel 2009). The evidence shows that the astrologer’s confidence rating of their selections of 100 blind charts were statistically significant (p=.037). These tests are not prone to standard criticism of astrological practice: Forer (and Barnum) effects, confirmation bias, cold reading techniques, cherry picking, data artifacts or flattery. Carlson is the largest test of this type, it involved the cooperation of both astrologers, scientists and sceptics and was published in Nature. Shawn Carlson's mentor, Professor Richard Muller describes it as the “definitive test of astrology”.

Has there been progress in astrology? Progress from around 5th century up until 1950 was negligible with a few significant astrologers in the face of religious intolerance. Besides the research published in Journals, the findings of Gauquelin, the work of Carl Jung in the field of archetypes, Jung and Pauli in the development synchronicity model, the incorporation of the outer planets, the innovation of Astro*Carto*Graphy (astrology of location), research into harmonics (Addey 1994), correlation between physical trait and planetary positions (Hill 1996), evidence supporting financial astrology (Zheng 2001) and (Pelc 2010), the discovery of Babylonian astrology through scientific historian and mathematician Neugebauer and others revealing the ancient empirical studies of astrology have greatly enhanced the application and understanding of the field of astrology.

Have astrologers failed to address fundamental problems with the theory? The astrological model has successfully handled many crises. Precession was first measured by Greek astrologer, Hipparchus and incorporated into astrology by Ptolemy. The heliocentric system was advocated by astrologers, Galileo and Kepler but has no bearing on the horoscope which has to be a geocentric map (unless someone is born on the Sun!). The philosophical doctrine of free-will has been addressed in recent centuries. The discovery of the outer planets required reformulation of the model, but has resulted in a superior system. The present problem of natal astrology is the lack of a known mechanism. There are many theories: solar tides, synchronicity, quantum mechanics and it is likely that astrology has several mechanisms. Currently evidence is coming from the Sunspot/Planet/Earth interrelationship with research studies including Brown, Webb & Bennett (1958), Seymour (1997), Wainwright (2004), Hung (2007) and Wilson (2008) and the circadian rhythm McGillion (2002) and McMahon (2010). Evidence without a lack of a known mechanism suggests that natal astrology is likely to be a proto-science but not a pseudoscience.

Are there alternative superior explanations that conflict with the theory? Nowadays the main challenge to astrology comes from genetics. Currently there is no conflict especially as genetically identical clones born at different times show surprising differences. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/copycat.php This field could challenge astrology in the future.

Do astrologers claim to be scientific when they are not? This may have been true of astrologers one hundred years ago, but the whole astrological model has been updated in the last century. First, while testable predictions are at the heart of science. most consultative astrologers who deal with personal clients do not claim to make predictions, though they will forecast trends allowing for individual circumstances and free-will. Second, the popular current working model among astrologers is that the planets (and stars) do not cause effects within the presently known laws of physics and that the relationship may be accausal. As a result, most practicing astrologers do not claim or present themselves as scientists.

sources

Sources

Addey. John (1994), Harmonics in Astrology. Eyebright Books. Somerset, UK. 1994.
Brown, Webb & Bennett, (1958), Comparisons of Some Fluctuations in Cosmic Radiation and in Organismic Activity During 1954, 1955 and 1956, American Journal of Physiology, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Northwestern University, IL; Dept. of Physiology, Goucher College, MD; Dept. of Biology, Sweet Briar College, VA; Marine Biological Laboratory, MA, http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/content/195/1/237.abstract
Cerveny, R. S. Shaffer, J. A., & R. C. Balling Jr. (1997), Polar temperature sensitivity to lunar forcing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(1), 29-32.
Cerveny, R. S., and R. C. Balling Jr. (1999), Lunar influence on diurnal temperature range, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(11), 1605-1607.
Cerveny, R. S., and J. A. Shaffer (2001), The Moon and El Niño, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(1), 25-28.
Cerveny, R. S., B. M. Svoma, and R. S. Vose (2010), Lunar tidal influence on inland river streamflow across the conterminous United States, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 37, L22406, doi:10.1029/2010GL045564.
Clark, Vernon (1961), Experimental astrology, Aquarian Agent, 1(9)
Carlson Shawn (1985), A double-blind test of Astrology, Nature Vol.318, pp.418-425 [5 December 1985]
Ding & Reiter,(1982) A relationship between planetary waves and persistent rain- and thunderstorms in China, Archives for Meterology, Geophysics and Bioclimatology, Ser.B, 31,pp. 221-252, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State Uni., CO
Ertel, Suitbert (1988), Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2(1), 53-82.
Ertel, S. & Irving, K., (1996), Tenacious Mars Effect, Urania Trust
Ertel, Suitbert, (2009), Appraisal of Shawn Carlson's Renowned Astrology Tests, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.23, #2. pp.125-137
Ertel & Irving (1997), Biased data effects in Mars Data Research, Journal for Scientific Exploration, Vol.11, pp.1-18
~~Hill, Judith, (1996), The Mars Redhead Files, Stellium Press,~~ A vanity press publication, not a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complexHill's work has been published in peer reivewed Journals and a full citation would be used if it was to be included on the page.Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hung, Chin Cheh (2007), Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity & Solar Tides caused by Planetary Activity, NASA, Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio This doesn't mention astrology, irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complexIt is relevant to astrology especially in the context of a possible mechanism. Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
McMahon (2010), McMahon, Ciarleglio, Axley, Strauss, Gamble: Perinatal photoperiod imprints the circadian clock, Nature Neuroscience, 14, 25–27 (2010)
McGillion, Frank (2002),The Pineal Gland And The Ancient Art Of Iatromathematica, Journal of Scientific Exploration Vol. 16, No. 1 pp 19-38
Marbell, Novak, Heal, Fleming & Burton (1986), Self Selection of Astrologically Derived Personality: An Empirical Test of the Relationship between Astrology and Psychology, NCGR Journal, Winter 1986-87, pp.29-44
Pelc, T & Bondar, Dmytro (2010), Sheer Lunacy staring at the Heavens, Charting Equity Special, Royal Bank of Scotland, 7 July 2010 does not mention astrology WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex
Rawlins, D (1981), sTARBABY, Fate, No: 34,
Seymour, Percy (1997), The Scientific Basis of Astrology, W. Foulsham, Slough, U.K.: Quantum, November 1997
Timm & Köberl (1986), Re-analyse einer validatätsuntersuchung, an 178 astrologen, Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der Psychologie, 28,33-55 (via Ertel 2004)
Varshneya, Vaidya, Vyas PandeyChimote, Damle, Shekh & Karande, (2010), Forecasting Rainfall for 2010 of Gujarat based on Astro-meteorology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand – 388 110, Gujarat, India Primary source submitted as a conference abstract, doesn't appear on google scholar, not a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex The authors state that their intention is to publish this lecture and there was no proposal to cite in the main article without publication.Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wainwright, Glyn, (2004), Jupiter's influence, New Scientist Issue 2439, (20 March 2004) Does this actually mention astrology? If it does not, it is irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex
Wilson, I., (2008), Do periodic peaks in planetary tidal forces acting upon the Sun influence the sunspot cycle? Faculty of Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, QLD Initially appears as a blank white page, adjusting PDF options lets you read it; about sunspots, what does this have to do with astrology? Unless I'm missing something, this is irrelevant. If I am missing something, was it ever actually published anywhere? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complexIt has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, but if it was proposed for publication on the main page, the source and publication would need to be verified.Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Zheng, Lu, Yuan, Kathy Zhichao and Zhu, Qiaoqiao, (2001), Are Investors Moonstruck? - Lunar Phases and Stock Returns (September 5, 2001). Journal of Social Science Doesn't mention astrology, irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex Check context of reference before assessing relevance.Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Zhao, Han & Li (2000), Variation of Lunar-Solar Tidal Force and Earthquakes in Taiwan Island of China. Earth, Moon, and Planets (Springer Netherlands) 88 (June, 2000) pp.123–129

Robertcurrey (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC) A study I forgot to include:
Tamrazyan, G. (1968), Principal Regularities in the distribution of Major Earthquakes Relative to Solar and Lunar Tides and other Cosmic Forces, Icarus, Vol.9,pp.574-592, Inst. Of Geology, Baku, (former USSR) Does this mention astrology in the body? The abstract suggests it is about earthquakes in relation to the gravitational effect of the sun and moon. This is irrelevant to the wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Robertcurrey (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your passion for the subject is admirable, yet we still have to follow Wikipedia policies. I would not object to a sentence along the lines of "Although astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience, some astrologers see it as an art form and not a science at all." As for your citations--most of them are about astronomy and geology and not astrology at all, and some (that are about astrology) refute rather than verify astrological claims. Mystylplx (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, particularly interesting (after a quick browse) among the articles you cited is this one http://www.astrodivination.com/moa/ncgrberk.htm. Mystylplx (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mystylplx - that was quite constructive.

Astrology overlaps with a great many fields and I have carefully selected studies that are within the realm of astrology and have been for over two thousand years. I can go into this in detail, but you cannot redefine astrology when it is supported by scientific evidence.

The second point is that your definition needs to separate the practice of astrology which is mostly an art or craft from the field of astrology which contains areas supported by science.

Lastly, the article you cite from a book by an astrologer written in 2003 makes many good points but it has been superseded by Ertel's reappraisal (2009) of the Carlson experiment.

Robertcurrey (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who cited the article--I just pointed it out. And I don't see how astrology "overlaps" with anything. It certainly borrows from astronomy, but that doesn't mean papers written about astronomy can be claimed to be about astrology too. Astrology is about the way heavenly bodies supposedly influence personality and events in peoples lives and has nothing to do with tides, sunspots, etc. Mystylplx (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystyplx cited the 2005 Carlson study as supporting his contention.

Again, RobertCurry cited that study, not I. All I did was point out it doesn't support his case.Mystylplx (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2009 Ertel study has, however, demonstrated that not only is the Carlson study seriously flawed but its data actually supports the case for astrology! While this finding sinks in with the recalcitrant sceptics, here is one more insightful comment for their benefit on the evolving state of science and astrology.

"More than 30 years ago, a group of like-minded skeptics published an Objections to Astrology statement in The Humanist, a philosophical journal editorially committed to rational, enlightenment-era values. In a companion essay, Astronomer Bart J. Bok, the group’s erstwhile spokesperson, argued that logic, reason and the physical evidence (what we know about the way the universe operates) all fail to support the astrological premise. Now that the distances have been calculated, it’s possible to see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and far more distant stars, he claimed. But here we are three decades later and the idea that oceans of “empty space” effectively isolate planet earth from everything else in creation no longer resonates for scientists the way it once did. Researchers in disparate fields of scientific inquiry (quantum physics, biology, cosmology and the new field of consciousness research) have exposed serious flaws in the arguments scientists have been using for centuries to debunk astrology. What they’re telling us now is that the natural world they’re observing doesn’t fit existing scientific theories all that well. It’s become increasingly more apparent that ours is not a world of separate things and events but a cosmos that is coherent, connected and “informed” in ways not previously imagined (at least not in recent centuries). Simply put, we’re living in a world in which ancient ideas about non-linear cosmic systems are beginning to make imminently more sense. "[9]

We should now be in a position to move forward with sensible edits of this article. Mr. Kwami, unblock this article! Erekint (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your quotation demonstrates beautifully how astrology continues to be a prime example of pseudoscience, despite the claims of some here that it no longer pretends to be scientific.

It's not up to me to unblock the article. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, if your point "... claims of some here that it [astrology] no longer pretends to be scientific." refers to anything that I have written, this does not comply with my comment "... most practicing astrologers do not claim or present themselves as scientists. " I don't believe there was ever any widespread pretense in the past, but certain beliefs based on a different model. Robertcurrey (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"we’re living in a world in which ancient ideas about non-linear cosmic systems are beginning to make imminently more sense"--in a scientific sense. This is a pseudoscientific statement, at least as far as it's being applied to astrology. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mystylplx,

How astrology is not just about personality and overlaps with other fields. First as I outlined there was a long Babylonian astrological tradition of scholars compiling data connected with earth processes and celestial events and formulating omens from this data. As you probably know astrology and astronomy were once the same field and the original separation occurred around the end of the first millennium in the Islamic world. While astronomy – the arrangement and naming of stars was acceptable for working out the times of prayer, religious festivals, navigation and the direction of Mecca, astrology the logic or reading of the stars was considered a heresy that might read the mind of god or lead to polytheism or atheism in a fundamentalist monotheistic society. Astrology later divided into natural astrology which was the prediction of natural phenomenon like tides, earthquakes and the weather and judicial astrology which was oriented to human affairs.

The Roman sceptic, Cicero criticised astrology including the belief in a connection between the tides and the moon. The most popular ancient book on astrology Tetrabiblos by polymath, Ptolemy, contains the first records of a tidal connection with the Moon – a theory he derived from ancient observation. Later, Kepler who practiced astrology and astronomy identified the connection between the 18.6-year nodal cycle, the precession of the lunar nodes and the tides even though he did not know the mechanism. Kepler also published astrological almanacs which included his weather forecasts based on lunar and planetary movements. It was Newton who accepted natural astrology (but there is no evidence he practiced judicial astrology) who applied his theory of universal gravitation to the role of the Sun and the Moon and the tides. Newton was initially criticised by sceptics for supporting astrology. This tradition of natural astrology has continued among astrologers today. For example, Richard Nolle is a professional astrologer who invented the term Super Moons. This term now used by astronomers which describes the period when the Moon is at perigee (as it is now) and the possible connection with earthquakes.

Yes, Astrology used to be a sort of mixture of divination and astronomy. They must have done pretty well for themselves while it lasted--imagine that guy over there who spills some chicken guts on the ground and reads your future in them. He even seems to be right a lot of the time. But that guy over there said the sun was going to go out (predicted an eclipse.) He said right when it would happen and how long it would last! NOW who are you going to go to to find out if your next child will be a son or what the crops will be like next year? But this is now the 21st century and most astrologers don't even own telescopes anymore. Mystylplx (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are sunspots connected with astrology? Dr Percy Seymour, former principal lecturer in astronomy and astrophysics at Plymouth University and previously a researcher at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, has developed a model to describe the mechanism behind astrology. It is outlined in his title “Astrology: The evidence of Science”. The best link that I can find is an interview from 1989 which will not be up to date with more recent research. In outline, it is based on the tidal tugs of all the planets in addition to the Sun and Moon which disrupt the Earth’s magnetosphere (magnetic field) which affects the human neural network. It works through the gravitational effects of the planets which are magnified by what Seymour calls ‘magneto tidal resonance’ to affect the sunspot cycle. Jane Blizard at NASA produced evidence for heliocentric planetary conjunctions, oppositions and squares (90° angle) giving rise to violent solar disturbances. Dr Robin Baker of Manchester Uni has evidence suggesting humans are sensitive to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. In separate studies, there are peaks within the Sun spot cycle coinciding with the helio Jupiter/Saturn conjunction 11.86 years, Jupiter’s perihelion 9.93 years and what astrologer’s call a Sun/Venus conjunction 11.08 years. Solar output (including heat, light, radio, x-rays, neutrinos, solar wind and possibly more) is extremely important as regards all life on Earth (not just climate). Some of these outputs directly affect human behaviour through interactions with the Earth’s electromagnetic field. For example, there are studies showing significant correlations between events such as wars on Earth and the 11 and 22 year sunspot cycle.

That's one theory. Unfortunately the gravitational effects of planets like Charon and Pluto are weaker than the gravitational effects of another person standing right next to you. And the papers you presented (on sunspots) were all about how sunspots form, not on how they effect human personality or destiny. It's the difference between science and pseudoscience. Mystylplx (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, you wrote …heavenly bodies supposedly influence personality … To avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to separate correlation from causation. Most astrologers do not claim that the heavenly bodies influence personality in a direct causal way as you suggest, but identify correlations between the two phenomena.
Robertcurrey (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Semantics. Since the movement of heavenly bodies is pretty well set then there's no effective difference between correlation and causation. We can't correlate the positions of stars with human behaviors since the position of the stars is well known and highly predictable. If there's any connection between human behavior and the positions of stars the connection can only be one way. Mystylplx (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be an important correction to make to the article. But acausal correlations do not mean it's not pseudoscientific: any correlation can be statistically tested, and therefore either confirmed or disconfirmed. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

First, kwami thank you for spelling acausal correctly and yes, acausal or even causal correlations alone do not determine whether a field of study is scientific or pseudoscientific or not. A lack of expected and claimed correlations would IMO fail #1 of my 7 points. Robertcurrey (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over a couple of the sources above, many don't mention astrology and are thus irrelevant and have been ~~struck through~~. Others aren't published in reliable sources. I've only looked through a minority, but it would require extensive original research to consider including any of these on the page. I haven't read the accompanying text but consider it irrelevant given the flaws in many of the sources. If I make the time, I'll try to parse some of the rest. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the list. At this stage there was no proposal to cite these studies in the main article. Otherwise I would provide more precise references. These studies relate to my comments and should be treated as such. It is advisable to read the context and argument, before making any assessment. Whether a study is labelled astrological or not is irrelevant, if the content supports or debunks astrological theory or provides evidence for a mechanism, then it is relevant and certainly relevant to the comments. Some studies address an area of astrology that overlaps with other fields and avoid the label astrology as it blocks publication in a scientific Journal due to a bias (as discussed in this thread). When the implications of a study in say psychology or genetics question the basis of astrology without mentioning the word astrology, sceptics consider it highly relevant. This is a key argument in favour of astrology as a pseudoscience and is also used in connection with a lack of mechanism. Can you confirm that the Wiki rules state that unless the study specifically mentions astrology or the field in question, no matter how relevant the evidence, we can discount it as irrelevant and that can be ignored and that I can count on your support in arguments on this point?

I suggest that until you can establish that natural astrology - which originated in Babylon at least from the first millennium BCE and is still practiced by astrologers today - is not astrology, studies relating to this ancient area of astrology (weather, climate, tidal, seismic for example) remain relevant to astrology. Robertcurrey (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. It very much matters whether a study is labeled astrology. If a study doesn't mention astrology, it is original research to include it and thus irrelevant. You are wasting everyone's time with every source that does not involve the word "astrology", that is unreliable, that is not published in an appropriate venue. Can I "confirm that the Wiki rules state that unless the study specifically mentions astrology or the field in question, no matter how relevant the evidence, we can discount it as irrelevant and that can be ignored and that I can count on your support in arguments on this point?" You bet your ass. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Your claim that studies not mentioning astrology are still relevant to this page are outright wrong and you need to drop it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally considered pseudoscience

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience:

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. (emphasis added)

It may be appropriate to note that some people^{[attribution needed]} consider astrology (or the practice of it) to be an art, rather than a science or pseudoscience; however, it would be completely inappropriate to obscure or minimize the pseudoscientific status of astrology by "present[ing] the pseudoscientific views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views". The current introduction does not treat the views of the two sides equally because they should not be treated equally. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience" is quite a bit different from the current absolute formulation implying that "Astrology is a pseudoscience". Moreover, the current excessive discussion of pseudoscience in the lead is a violation of NPOV-undue weight:

"[Astrology] is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved....Astronomy began to diverge from astrology, in the Muslim world during the turn of the 2nd millennium AD, and in Europe after a period of gradual separation from the Renaissance up through the 18th century. Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific". Psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases."

The following reformulation has therefore been proposed:

"In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support. Astrology has played a leading part in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although scientists in Western countries tend to regard astrology as a pseudoscience[citation], opinion in Eastern countries considers that the 4000 year heritage of astrology entitles it to respect as a trusted body of knowledge. [citation for Indian ruling]."

The wording of the proposed reformulation is in line with the meaning of "generally considered pseudoscience." The proposed revisions of the lead as a whole (see above) addresses a number of other factual inaccuracies and eliminate statements that are not supported by citations - as carefully explained in earlier discussion.Erekint (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an inappropriately narrow reading of that old Arbcom decision, which is now part of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience. "Astrology is a pseudoscience" is a straightforward way of expressing that all relevant experts consider astrology to be a pseudoscience. The paragraph in question talks about a weaker statement because it is meant to include other topics for which weaker language than for astrology is appropriate.

I object to any language that attempts to present apologetics of astrology as something to be taken seriously, or the question of whether astrology is a pseudoscience as something that is up to interpretation. This is simply misinformation. Hans Adler 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans. "Although scientists in Western countries tend to regard astrology as a pseudoscience ..." is completely misleading. "Tend to"? In a scientific context it most certainly is pseudoscience, no wiggle room. In a New Age context, if you want to consider it akin to other spiritual or religious beliefs, it isn't pseudoscience, but in that case you have to make the separation clear, and the alignment with religion clear. If there is any question that it is being placed on the same plain of human knowledge as science it must be called pseudoscience. Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. And in response to Erekint, the "current excessive discussion of pseudoscience in the lead" does not violate WP:UNDUE for the reason that, in the article, the scientific viewpoint should be dominant over the pseudoscientific viewpoint. The two viewpoints should not be treated as equally valid or legitimate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the scientific POV should be dominant, because the fact that astrology is a pseudoscience is only one of many things worth saying about it. It's sufficient to mentino the fact in a few strategic places and explain it in more detail in a dedicated section. We don't have to repeat it everywhere. This would make for very tedious reading and would make the article come across as a debunking piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Maybe this is not what you meant, but I have observed tendencies to push articles that way in many other pseudoscience topics. Hans Adler 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans here that there's a difference between the scientific point of view being clearly mentioned and that point of view receiving a majority of space in the article. This is not [Scientific criticism of Astrology], it's [Astrology]. That it's a pseudoscience is indeed one small facet of its incredibly rich history and practice. It is a very important fact, but it need not be the lens through which every aspect is described (i.e. Astrologers look at birth locations, which is pseudoscientific...Astrologers look at planetary intersections which is pseudoscientific... Astrologers do... which is pseudoscientific, etc.). We're an encyclopedia, not the Skeptical Inquirer, and we need to represent the full subject matter. Ocaasi (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, if/when the context is scientific it needs to be identified as pseudoscience, but even then we don't have to repeat the point ad nauseum. On the other hand I'm not so sure that the "rich history and practice" you mention is as distinct from the scientific context as you seem to be claiming. Where astrology would not have been considered pseudoscience hundreds of years ago it is now, and both are within the historical trajectory of the development of science. But I agree that we are not the skeptical inquirer and ought not to see our job as debunking astrology, as opposed to presenting it as a multifaceted subject matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need to be repeated ad nauseum. However, the article doesn't do that. The pseudoscientific nature of astrology is essential for any complete discussion of it and so requires a section within the article. That should also of course be reflected in the lede—which is what the article currently does. — kwami (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is not excessive. What's lacking is all of the very nice additions to the history and practice which advocates of astrology have compiled while attempting to shift away from pseudoscience. The pseusdoscience characterization should stay, but so should all of that historical, cultural, and trade detail which the article could use too. Ocaasi (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, my comment was ambiguous. I meant "dominant" in relation to the pseudoscientific view, not in terms of the percentage of the article devoted to it, so I believe we are in agreement. The article should not, of course, be repurposed into a 'Criticism of ...' article; when presenting the competing viewpoints of astrology as science and astrology as pseudoscience, however, the article should not present them as equally valid positions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us indeed hope this Wikipedia article is not the Skeptical Inquirer. There is of course, as others have stated, much more to astrology than this pseudoscience claim, but there are constant reminders throughout the current article that this is what astrology means to Wikipedia. As Robertcurrey has pointed out, the article should show the development of astrology alongside science. For example, in understanding the role of the Moon in the tides.

BTW It is hard for astrologers to comprehend that the scientific community is still in denial of the role of supermoons in earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and sever storms. Is the rejection of astrology so fervent and blind that it is enough to override rationality? Astrologers have documented the destruction of supermoons for over 30 years and have been discussing the anticipated supermoon quakes on Facebook for many weeks. http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/46883/supermoon-and-earthquakes-is-t.asp. Why is this always met with fear, when it could have saved lives?

The pseudoscience claim should be presented as what it is, an argument from scientists who are using nothing more than their own authority to make the claim, in other words a rational fallacy. When this happened in 1975, in the "Objections to Astrology Article," the scientists who signed the paper later declined to be interviewed on their strongly held beliefs because they admitted they did not know enough about astrology to be able to comment. Carl Sagan was one of the few eminent scientist at the time to have the presence of mind to form a more objective view and criticize his colleagues for what they did. The current Wikipedia article seems intent on filling the same stubborn belief function as "Objections" did in 1975. Hasn't that lesson been learned yet?

The article should cover the question of whether astrology deserves to be called a pseudoscience and I think it should be mentioned in the introduction. Within this section would be discussed the overlooked detail that astrologers don't actually consider astrology to be a science. The "Objections" article and its criticism can be presented. Also, Forer tests, which are obviously not tests of astrology and were never claimed to be. Sun sign tests by skeptics and their criticism. The widely acclaimed Shawn Carlson test, and its reversal in 2009 as a test that is now scientifically regarded as consistent with astrology. Anything else, we can include them and the scientific criticism. Following these refutations and reversal, we can present the actual peer-reviewed, replicated, falsifiable yet unfalsified scientific studies that support astrological theory and interpretation, for which there are several very good examples as already mentioned by Robertcurrey. This section would not present astrology versus science, but good science versus bad science.

What do we want? A repeat of the passionately held beliefs of the men who signed "Objections" or a fair article that objectively describes the rich history, influence, and fascinating theories of astrology? It should go without saying that we should not let the Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, firmly entrenched though it is, to dictate against actual scientific evidence. Apagogeron (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What we want is an article founded on the principles outlined at WP:5P. See WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. It must be understood that the pseudoscience claim is indeed a claim and therefore requires evidence. Astrologers do not claim astrology to be a science, thus the burden of evidence will be on those who make the claim of pseudoscience. The problem for them is that there is no such evidence. The scientists who have investigated astrology, however have found evidence that is consistent with astrology. This does not mean that astrology is a science, but that there is a modest (not extraordinary) consistency to be found that is so improbable that it suggests further studies should be done to find out what is really happening. Apagogeron (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to WP:REDFLAG, please read WP:PARITY. We do not need a Nobel Prize winning scientist to conduct research over several years in order to declare that Astrology is a pseudoscience. The article can say that astrology is a joke used to puff out magazines (if a suitable source is available), or that it is pseudoscience because that is the only alternative. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. As to whether "The article should cover the question of whether astrology deserves to be called a pseudoscience...", that's a matter of presenting sources that do so. Wikipedia doesn't engage in OR. We present the sources that consider it a pseudoscience, and when mainstream science is so agreed that it's a pseudoscience, we repeat what the sources say without making any apologies. The burden of evidence is on astrologers to change things. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim that astrology is pseudoscience is OR because there is no evidence to support it. It doesn't matter how many people believe it. Wikipedia doesn't engage in OR, so the rule still applies. Johnuniq is partially mistaken. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize winning scientist to do the research, but a body of scientific research is needed to support the persistent belief that astrology pseudoscience or it is simply OR. The thing that needs to change is the recognition that this very stubborn belief is actually contrary to science. Maybe it is up to astrologers to point out this fact. Apagogeron (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"OR because there is no evidence to support it"? -- Thanks for this unusually clear example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To quote myself from a section above to which I have already pointed earlier in this thread:

The following is from an article [10] in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by Sven Ove Hansson. He criticises Karl Popper's definition via falsifiability because on closer inspection it fails to cover the pseudosciences that make falsifiable predictions and stick to them long after they have been falsified:
"Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted (Culver and Ianna 1988; Carlson 1985)."
In the further discussion, he mentions that Popper himself criticised Kuhn for proposing a definition of pseudoscience which under Popper's reading would not have included astrology. The one thing practically all philosophers agree about is that any meaningful definition of pseudoscience must include astrology. The unusually detailed and nuanced treatment in Paul Thagard's Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience is particularly worth reading. Hans Adler 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For a claim of OR it's not sufficient to close your eyes and ears and ignore all reputable sources such as philosophers of science publishing in peer-reviewed journals. For such a claim it would be necessary that they don't exist in the first place. Can we please raise the intellectual level of this debate to somewhere in the neighbourhood of zero? Hans Adler 09:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, do you realise that you are citing dated research results? Several editors have informed of the latest results on this talk page, which overturn the earlier results. Evidently, youdidnthearthat. Erekint (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If any mainstream scholars such as reputable philosophers have decided that the verdict on astrology must be revisited, feel free to provide specific reliable sources. Otherwise, it's pointless to discuss the contention that they should do so, since that would be original research. Hans Adler 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The following research studies are by an eminently reputable scholar. They replicate studies by other scholars by correcting for uncovered flaws. The conclusions of the first study by Ertel (1988) confirms the basic finding of the earlier path breaking study by Gauqelin (1955). The book narrates the history of the Mars effect. The second study by Ertel (2009) reverses the findings of the much publicised Carlson (1985) study, a favourite of the anti-astrology crowd.

Ertel, Suitbert (1988), "Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2(1), 53-82.

Ertel, S. & Irving, K., (1996), Tenacious Mars Effect, Urania Trust

Ertel, Suitbert, (2009), "Appraisal of Shawn Carlson's Renowned Astrology Tests", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.23, #2. pp.125-137

There is plenty of discussion of these studies on the net.[11],[12],[13],[14]. The appraisal by other scientists has been slow in coming. Likely it is because the findings suggest causal mechanisms in the universe that defy the present state of knowledge.

Importantly, as the sceptics cannot point to studies disproving astrology that have withstood scholarly scrutiny, their claim that astrology is pseudoscience is suddenly without credible sources and thus only a historical curiosum. At best, the sceptics can be said to consider that astrology is a pseudoscience. The lead of the astrology article needs to reflect this reality. Erekint (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not referring to publications in fringe outlets such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration ("publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals" -- so it is self-defined as off the mainstream) or published by an astrology publishing house (about as off-mainstream as it gets). I could not find any reviews of the book in reputable journals or similar places, so I find it extremely hard to take it seriously. Hans Adler 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, feel free to move on to the discussion in the next section. All the points of interest are being adressed there. Erekint (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.4

There has been a lot of interesting new discussion, and it is clear that the ‘pseudoscience’ reference is going to divide opinion sharply. I’m sure we all agree that the matter must be given appropriate coverage in its own section, and I for one am happy to have a mention in the lede. So how do we move this forward to find consensus on the lede (without getting too tied up in the fuller arguments at this stage)? As Hans Adler says (21:56, 14 March 2011) we don’t want to make the scientific POV too dominant in the lede. We also need to include reference to the Indian ruling because this makes an important point about astrology’s global standing too. But again, this should be done without making too much out of it, or trying to present that as a dominant viewpoint either; or leaving the impression that this answers or removes the need for scientific criticism.

Perhaps we can tie in to what Mystyplx wrote when he said:

I would not object to a sentence along the lines of "Although astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience, some astrologers see it as an art form and not a science at all." 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we work to find an agreement around this? How about:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.[refs] Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars, visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest.[ref]

A natal chart, also known as a 'horoscope', is a map of the universe centered on the 'native', which is the subject whose environment is to be studied. It shows the relative positions of the celestial bodies within the signs, houses, and phase aspects, which are the mathematical frames of reference used for astrological interpretation.

Astrology combines information and principles from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as "a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.[ref] Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[ref]

Because of its ancient history and legacy of cultural influence, Eastern nations consider that astrology is entitled to respect as a trusted body of knowledge.[ref]. However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical applications. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers.

In more modern times, astrology has experienced a resurgence of interest and popular support, and has played a prominent role in New Age thinking and philosophy. Although astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience [ref], astrologers see the practical application of its techniques to be an art form, which is not comparable with scientific methodology.

Since most of these comments have already been argued and found to be substantiated and generally approved, could any criticisms please be specific, and detail what (if any) problem exists, and how it might be solved. In other words, don’t just mention problems – suggest solutions that are not extreme and which are likely to move us towards common agreement; otherwise this could go on forever. Costmary (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Costmary, good effort, but the statement "astrologers see the practical application of its techniques to be an art form, which is not comparable with scientific methodology" is not entirely true. Some astrology is based on the scientific method, even if material causal mechanisms have not been identified. Ertel's work involves the application of the scientific method to the question of astrology and finds strong evidence for astrology at the planetary level. Many here reject the findings because according to their world view astrology can't a priori work. That is not how science is supposed to be. The merit of science is in its methodology, and not its ability to form a church of accepted knowledge. The respected philosopher of science, Feyerabend would have been disgusted by some of the arguments levied here by the so-called sceptics. Erekint (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, I understand your point and agree with it. I also think there should be no reference to pseudoscience in the lede as it makes it inevitable that the essential nature of the subject is misunderstood at the start. To me, the situation is comparable to introducing cooking as a subject that is not recognized by modern scientific methodology even though it is taught in schools as ‘domestic science’. It is simply bringing attention to the wrong point at the wrong time.

It is difficult at this point in the article to delve into nuances of how ‘natural’ astrology (which aims to be objective) differs from ‘judicial astrology (which does not). Perhaps this could be explained within the section that discusses the branches of astrology? What I tried to do is acknowledge that, in general, the consultational practise of astrology is judicial and so not comparable to modern science. I think most astrologers would accept that as a general definition even though there are exceptions.

Our problem is that this discussion has gone on too long, and we are at an impasse. We are not going to get a solution that everyone agrees to, so at this point I think we should all be prepared to give a little ground and find a solution that is tolerable to all. That’s why I asked for objections to be given with proposals for solutions that might find common agreement. The task seems to be almost impossible; hence if editors such as Mystyplx are will willing to accept this, then I would tolerate it too. It’s not ideal, but it’s certainly better than the current lede, which is loaded with problems and bound to continue to cause controversy. If it is a serious point of contention for you, could you suggest an alternative for the phrase that offends you? Costmary (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph must summarize the body. The fact that astrology is pseudoscience should be prominent in the lead. Far more prominent than the alleged divisions within contemporary astrology. Astrology is primarily a historical subject. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Costmary, what that means is, change the body, and then we'll come back to the lead if you can find reliable sources to back up your positions there. In fact, add any good historical information or practitioner information or modern changes information to the body and with sources and then we can talk. Basic policy about Pseudoscience will stay the same though. @WLU, I think that's a little extreme. Astrology is both historical and mythological and sociological and an actual profession. Just because it's not scientific doesn't mean it's just history. We should encourage astrology proponents to help us describe the field as it is actually understood by them and practiced by them, so long as the sources match up with the claims. Ocaasi (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, astrology is all of those things - but the topic being discussed right now isn't the historical roots, sociology of current beliefs in astrology or it's mythological context. It's the fact that astrology is apparently a real profession and not in any way a pseudoscience. That is both a discussion, and an editing trend, that I wish to curtail. Though there is perhaps a place for a brief description of some contemporary "professions" within astrology, I really don't want to see an endless hair-splitting list or the expansion of the ostensibly scientific roots of astrology. I believe the discussion has gone on long enough regarding pseudoscience, and the limited number and experience of the editors supporting a pro-astrology stance makes them strongly inclined to inappropriately ignore the relevant policies and guidelines, to the detriment of this talk page and the main page. IDIDNTHEARTHAT has come up repeatedly and it's certainly warranted. The only support that can be mustered are inadequate sources and argumentation, not appropriate reference to policy or high-quality journal articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let’s be clear, so we don't miss the focus of this discussion – this is discussion is NOT about the pseudoscience argument; it’s about an appropriate introduction to the subject as a whole, as understood historically and within contemporary practise. Astrology is a very broad subject and has had a massive influence on the development of culture, and it continues to have massive popularity and influence, so it needs to be introduced in a way that gives an overview of what this subject is, and why it has and does matter. People come here to get an educational guide to the topic, not a propaganda exercise, that argues for it's validity or against it's scientific standing. Ocaasi has a point but WLU’s suggestion that the pseudoscience issue has to be raised above all else seems to be based on his/her confusion over what is being argued here (as opposed to the views on its supposed pseudoscience standing generally). The proposed introduction has been put together as a collaborative effort, and every point has been argued and supported by good quality reliable references, with the only element of debate appearing to remain fixed on how to include the pseudoscience reference. We are at the tail end of this discussion, not the beginning of it. As a late-comer WLU may not be aware of all the previous discussion on this matter.

Ocaasi, can you be more specific if you feel that anything in the proposed lede is not supported by reliable sources or the existing body of the article? Changes to the body of the article are only needed if we don't go with the text above. As it stands it works well with what currently exists. In any case I think it would be interesting to get your suggestion as to how this generally approved wording might be adapted to find common agreement (if need be), so that it doesn’t become the subject of endless dispute and eternal edits. For this we all need to keep the bigger picture in mind and not get bogged down in the contentious issues that might seem important to our personal views, but aren't that important (or representative) for the subject we are introducing.Costmary (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only citation lacking, that has not been given/quality-assessed already is for the comment that astrology is considered a pseudoscience - can someone provide suitable reference for that please? Costmary (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-rationality of scientific sceptics

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion

Taking a que from Apagogeron, and given the excessive and one sided emphasis on the pseudoscienctific view of sceptics in the lead, it is proposed the following be added to the lead:

Scientific research has found evidence in favour of astrology, including reversing earlier findings against[cite e.g. Gauqelin (1955), Carlson (1985), Ertel (1987) and Ertel (2009)]. The failure of sceptics to acknowledge the results, has prompted the researchers to allege pseudo-rationality in the scientific community[cite earlier quoted material].

This would balance the discussion. Erekint (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would balance the presentation of views, but policy specifically prohibits this. Please read WP:GEVAL and WP:WEIGHT. Simply, the view that astrology is not a pseudoscience is localized to practitioners of Astrology and some parts of China and India. WP:NPOV requires that the attention given to points of view reflects the reliability and relevance of the sources under WP:RS. We might be able to say that some astrologers don't think astrology has gotten a fair shake from scientists and that they are 'denying or ignoring' results, but we can not present that in such a way as to debunk the broad mainstream consensus. We should describe what Astrologers think and do, including their views of science, but we should not do this in such a way as to equate what Astrologers think of science with what Scientists think of astrologers. You have to read the above policies for this to make sense. They are well established for dealing with these topics. If you want to argue Astrology is not a pseudoscience, you'll have to convince the rest of the scientific world first, and convince them to write about it; only then can you try and change the balance in Wikipedia, since we reflect available Reliable Sources. Ocaasi (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, there is no need to interpret or downplay the facts of this debate, the citations speak for themselves. Wikipedia should not take sides in debates only report them. If it is only astrologers who are paying heed to the evolution of scientific results concerning astrology, then it can also be mentioned.

PS as regards your flagging of equal validity, undue weight, bias and reliable sources in one fell swoop, please note the following. First, this is an article about astrology (and not about science). Second, the viewpoint of those favouring astrology is of equal if not greater importance to that of the sceptics. After all there are many more people in the world who favour astrology than there are people sceptical about it. The importance of pseudoscience vs pseudorationality should be weighed accordingly. Third, the sceptics seem to have religious adherence to their views, based as they are on a denial of scientific evidence. It is therefore the sceptics who are promoting fringe theories. Fourth, the sources cited are reliable as they involve peer reviewed journals of high quality and reflect the work of first rate academians. Certainly, there has been no hesitation to cite these studies when they find against astrology. Conclusion, the imbalance in the lead resides in giving excessive emphasis to the views of pseudorational sceptics professing to be a part of the scientific community while promoting fringe theories that are not sourced. Erekint (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is flatly wrong. Neutrality doesn't mean "from the perspective of proponents", it means "from the perspective of the relevant scholars". In this case, that would be physicists, psychologists, historians and astronomers - not proponents of a discredited pseudoscience. Wikipedia does take a side when the debate is incredibly one-sided and the question is considered settled. Astrology is simply and flatly considered pseudoscience by everyone but astrologers; there's no real debate. Just because this is the astrology page, doesn't mean we present a credulous account - it should be essentially historical and any modern mention should be brief and clearly identify astrology as a popular topic only. The viewpoint of astrologers is not equal to that of skeptics. Popularity does not imply validity. Claiming skeptics and scientists adhere to a religion is a popular antiscientific talking point which completely ignores the empirical basis of science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, are you saying the findings of Ertel are not relevant? If so, several editors here would disagree strongly with that assertion. The world may seem black or white to some people, but that isn't really how it is, you know. All the proposed edit does is to give voice to those favouring astrology, including the mention of research studies that have found evidence in support of astrology. At the same time, the complaints of eminent researchers about what amounts to silencing by sceptics of findings in support of astrology bears mention, don't you think? Erekint (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying it's easily verifiable that the the majority of scholars think it's nonsense, and that's the emphasis the page should get per WP:UNDUE. Prominence on a page is based on prominence within the scholarly community, not the population at large nor among editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We simply do not the present pseudo-scientific claims made by a fringe community on par with those of mainstream science. That is not a form of "balance" that occurs here. See WP:FRINGE. There is no problem with presenting the claims of this community, but they have to be contextualized properly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, there is no need to "contextualise" the above proposal as it is not a pseudoscientific claim. It is just a factual statement concerning the debate. PS see comment above regarding fringe. Erekint (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the applicable content guideline that I linked to above already WP:FRINGE. It clearly disagrees with you. "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Those who lobby for fringe theories usually try to invoke neutrality, as you are doing now, as an end run around the proper contextual presentation of their views. The guideline was written for the purpose of not enabling such actively. Please read it. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

From the same page you cited

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

Mystylplx (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystyplx, please refer to the PS comments to Ocaasi. To that it could be added that Wikipedia does not support the application of a double standard. Erekint (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. Those in support of astrology seem capable of ignoring or excusing away overwhelming evidence that astrology doesn't work. Those who are skeptics are getting accused of being irrational because we do not also ignore or explain away overwhelming evidence that astrology doesn't work. Strange. Mystylplx (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystyplx, put your money where your mouth is and cite at least one serious study containing this overwhelming evidence (excluding studies of universally discredited sun-sign astrology). Erekint (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already did. I presented 94 studies with many millions of subjects. They were merely dismissed as "flawed" (for no apparent reason other than that they don't support claims made by astrology.) Mystylplx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In science, you don't have to prove a negative. It's up to the proponents to demonstrate their claims. Astrology has repeatedly failed to do this. So it is not scientific. Yet it makes claims which would be verifiable if they were correct. That makes it pseudoscientific. Most scientists consider it too silly to bother with, and a waste of time, so we're not going to find much (though I would think there'd be something.) This is a common problem with debunking pseudoscience, and has been addressed in our conventions on pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast, kwami. Ertel (1988) and (2009) studies have been offered as proof for the merit of astrology. To my knowledge, no one has been able to disprove their findings. Earlier, Carlson (1985) was offered as proof that astrology has no merit. This study has now been reversed. Richardcurrey has challenged Mystyplx to come up with proof for the sceptics claim against astrology. We are still waiting to hear from him. Your effort to get him off the hook is understandable but in itself an admission of defeat. Now that your claim has been disproved there is no solid evidence for the claim that astrology "is" a pseudoscicne. In view of that the lead of the article needs to be modified to reflect two key points. 1) that the scientific community "considers" astrology to be pseudoscience and 2) the above text proposal. Erekint (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ertel was published in a fringe journal. I can "prove" that there are little green men on Mars if that's all that's required. To be accepted, you need to be peer reviewed. No-one's going to bother to refute the stuff that comes out of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacking the journal, which is peer reviewed in a credible, scholarly, rigorous and sceptical manner, is no substitute for not being able to find fault with the research study itself. Erekint (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and two studies by one author in a fringe publication like the Journal of Scientific Exploration does not constitute adequate "proof for the merit of astrology". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have no proof of the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience. Yet you insist we take your exceptional claim about JSE at face value. At the same time, you refuse to accept perfectly good research proving the opposite point of view. Your argument is bankrupt. Erekint (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As for your demand that we water down the characterization as pseudoscience, please read the Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience at the top of this page: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." That's exactly what we do: we categorize it as pseudoscience. There's no need to be wishy washy about it. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Apagogeron's insightful commentary below. As far as the above statement is concerned, the issue is quite simple. The sceptics can't prove astrology "is" a pseudoscience and hence the wording in the lead needs to reflect that. In its place the wording astrology is "considered" to be a pseudoscience should be used. Moreover, the views and evidence of those favouring astrology need to be incorporated into the lead as per the proposed text. We agree on one point, kwami, there is no need to be wishy washy about the edits. Erekint (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can agree that scientists do not claim that astrology "is" a pseudoscience on the basis of Wikipedia arbitration rulings. The article can say that scientists "consider" or "are in agreement" that astrology is a pseudoscience. This would allow the scientists who believe this to state their belief while avoiding the need for any scientific evidence to back it up. Maybe we can reach a consensus on this. To give full disclosure about the difficulties surrounding this view or claim, as this Talk page attests, a corresponding view or belief, perhaps from other scientists, needs to be stated that will illustrate the problem. Apagogeron (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

JSE is a respected science journal, with peer reviewers who are experts in their fields of knowledge. It is not a fringe journal but a journal that investigates fringe claims, with articles and critical reviews going both ways. In the case of the Carlson article, all the content is taken directly from Carlson's Nature article itself and so all cards are on the table. It is not research, but an scientific scrutiny of the Carlson claim to have refuted astrology. It provides the peer review that should have been done in the original Nature article. Ertel does nothing more than point out the flaws in the study. When you read the original Nature article and you know what you are looking for because Ertel has quoted Carlson directly, the flaws in design, method, and analysis are apparent to anyone. This is not rocket science, anyone can see it.

Carlson provides no disclosure of similar scientific studies in the literature (e.g. Clark, Marbell), the design is unfairly skewed in several ways and was under protest by the participating astrologers, some of whom left the study. When it comes to the analysis, Carlson disregards his own stated criteria of evaluation. He makes irrelevant groupings of data. He rejects unexpected results, and he makes an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. When Carlson's stated criteria is applied, the results are consistent with astrological interpretation. Carlson's article has shocking flaws for any scientific article. This is not a case of astrology versus science, it is a case of science trying to correct itself.

Most scientists may agree that astrology a pseudoscience and most astrologers may agree that astrology is not a science, but there is still the issue of scientists who have studied the matter deeply who are in disagreement with one another. Those sort of scientific disagreements can only be resolved by doing experiments, removing flaws, and explaining results. When approached in this manner, there is no evidence that is against astrology as it is known and practiced by astrologers, though there are very many failed tests by people who have no idea what they should be looking for. The are however, some interesting replicated findings that are falsifiable yet have never been falsified for over 20 years. The scientists who have done these studies have taken the time to understand what to look for and they have found results that are consistent with astrological theory and practice.

Irrespective of the pseudoscience agreement by the majority of scientists, science is not a question of majority rules and Wikipedia conventions. There must be a place in the Astrology article for the discourse between scientists, the scientific quality of studies that have been done, and the body of scientific discoveries that are consistent with astrology as it has been described in astrological theory and practice. Apagogeron (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For those interested, here is an article you can read on Ertel's assessment of the Carlson study: http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/support-for-astrology-from-the-carlson-double-blind-experiment/ Here is the original Carlson article from Nature: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf Apagogeron (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

JSE might be an adequate source for the minority opinion, but it's still a minority opinion and shouldn't be used to rewrite the article from a pro-astrology perspective. Even if there are localized studies, they're still not a sign of the scientific world coming to accept astrology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. JSE is only good for the opinions of minority fringe opinions, not as a reliable source for scientific facts. It's a fringe journal that has been relegated to the rubbish bin at Wikipedia in other situations, so the only thing new here is not the situation, but the new editors who aren't aware of what we consider reliable sources. It's a pseudoscience journal that's willing to publish anything not mainstream. It is definitely not a "respected science journal" with the mainstream. Most probably don't even know it exists. It's a fringe journal for fringe opinions that can't get published elsewhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this journal appears to be dedicated to cutting edge topics which traditional science is hard pressed to deal with, like conciousness, involving mechanisms that have as of yet no identified material causal mechanism. That in itself is not a valid reason to discard the evidence presented there by respected members of academia, like Ertel. JSE is exactly the appropriate place for his work to be presented, as it is dealing with topics at the margin of science (not pseudoscience). Where would the world be if all knowledge was subjected to such constraints? Do you think Galileo's work was considered reputable by his contemporaries forming the church of learned oppinion? Of course, not. But it was true what he published. Think about it, perhaps the scientific community, because it has materialist blinders on, is becoming the modern equivalent of a church of learned oppinion? Erekint (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Read that link. When mainstream RS are convinced, they will report it as fact and we'll change the article and our opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a circular argument here. No matter how strong the case and supporting evidence, Wikipedia’s policy supposedly cannot go against the weight of scientific consensus even if 99.9% (my guess here) is based on ignorance of the field and recent research. As with the statistical results of Gauquelin, the scientific community will never know about the case for astrology or the recent evidence supporting the practice of astrologers because Wikipedia ‘reliably’ informs them that they roundly dismiss the field as pseudoscience. Therefore editors of scientific journals will not risk their reputations by publishing an article that suggests they are promoting pseudoscience. Therefore any astrological research supporting astrology has to be published in small specialist journals which sceptics claim are fringe and cannot be trusted. Given these facts, any attempt to discredit a scientific journal because it does not always support your beliefs, suggests an evasion of inconvenient evidence.

Wikipedia is quite explicit in its promise that: “Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Using rules to quash or undermine evidence is certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia’s pledge. Worse ... it’s also bad science.

I feel very disillusioned by the use of the rules/policy to block what I consider improvement as I had high hopes that we could create an astrology page on Wikipedia that informed people about the subject without making any unwarranted claims or have the field unjustifiably undermined by a sceptical agenda.

Further to Apagogeron’s comments, I have also studied the Carlson Experiment – the gold standard cited on the Astrology page and published in Nature (1985). I have a paper on it currently under peer review by a Ph.D for a Journal that a sceptic might reject. However, no one objected when Mystylplx cited 94 empirical studies from various ‘fringe’ Journals including this one, which he (I am guessing you are a he) misguidedly believed debunked astrology. My paper has been reviewed (not peer reviewed) by Dr Dean – who was complimentary but raised a number of objections which I have since addressed. It was also reviewed by two professors (statistics and psychology). The Carlson experiment is extremely complex in the way it is presented. Even in the book that cited in the Hans Adler’s quote – which is now way out of date as a review of astrological research – Culver & Ianna (1988) the authors only referred to one part of the experiment which was ruled out as invalid by Carlson. The authors managed to avoid other extant studies that supported astrology other than Gauquelin. Just in case anyone thinks, Carlson is being cherry-picked as an experiment that happens to support astrology, Hans Adler, who must have missed the earlier discussion or is apparently not aware of recent research, used a quote referencing Carlson.

So the argument that astrology is a pseudoscience because astrologers should have abandoned their vocation on the back of Carlson’s faulty conclusions or a selective sceptical book is a fallacy. Conclusions from complex scientific tests are far from infallible. The only argument left is that astrology is a pseudoscience because it just is! The goal-posts will no doubt again be moved to justify this belief.

The Carlson Double-Blind Astrology Test was funded and organized by a sceptical group in order to provide lasting proof that astrology was no more than chance. Indeed, the results are still cited by more than 400 websites. It has resulted in a strong sceptical bias against astrology for the last 25 years, despite the promising results of Gauquelin. (I challenge anyone here to cite a test of the practice of astrologers that is in the same league as Carlson). However, a review of the data shows that Carlson made sampling errors and that the astrologers were able to successfully rate their identification of 100 charts against blind psychological profiles to a statistically significant level under scientific conditions. To date, this reanalysis published in 2009 (Ertel), has yet to be refuted.

Carlson’s negative conclusions about astrology were almost unanimously and unquestioningly accepted by the scientific community (apart from Professor Hans Eysenck) and the Press. So though the practice of a group of astrologers has been shown to be falsifiable, their results supported astrology. These results need to be included in the Research section in Wikipedia. Robertcurrey (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument ignores a) the fact that there are hundreds of high-quality sources that clearly label astrology as pseudoscience (and since wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth by citing sources to convey a neutral scientific consensus that means we don't have to deal with specifics, just note the scientific consensus) b) ignores any prior probability as to why objects millions of miles away would have any influence on us (the main reason science ignores astrology) c) that science doesn't rest on a single study but on millions of individual experiments and parts of knowledge and d) that extreme claims require extreme sources (and there's not), means this is not circular, it rests on a bedrock of scientific consensus. It could be wrong, but we don't care - what matters is that scientists believe it. Until the scientific community changes its mind, we don't change how wikipedia reports on astrology - we are not a soap box to promote a viewpoint, nor are we a crystal ball to outrun the beliefs of the scientific community. If astrology can't get published in high-quality journals, that's not our problem; until they can, wikipedia continues to label it pseudoscience. Bad science would be ignoring the massive bodies of evidence that provides no rational for astrology to work, and accepts instead credulous statistical testing based on old religious precepts. We don't report on creationism positively for the same reason - both are popular, both are pseudoscience. If you are disillusioned by these rules, used to ensure a high-quality, tertiary reference work, perhaps you should simply cease attempting to edit it. Regular contributors are doubtless quite tired of efforts by a single purpose account to push an inappropriate POV.

Quite simply - we don't care if astrology is a pseudoscience, is true, is accurate, or has positive support in a small number of studies. What we do care about is that the scientific community at large considers it pseudoscience. Astrology should be reported on as a historical item of minor popular interest, not as a budding or neglected area of investigation. Our policies are verifiability, neutrality, no original research, and a whole bunch of things we are not. That's the end of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Robertcurrey has noted that the sceptics try to move the goal posts when their arguments fall flat. This is another such effort. The final argument is that astrology is a pseudoscience because it is. The icing on the cake of this circular logic is that Wikipedia says so. Of course, Wikipedia cannot be its own source on such matters. All statements must be backed up by independent verification. The circular reasoning achieves only to establish the irrationality of this position. Erekint (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, that's very well put. Astrology is still one of the most classic examples of pseudoscience, along with homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Soon, scientific oppinion, if based on the logic seen here, will be in this group. Erekint (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When RS reflect your opinion, the article will change, and we'll also change our opinion. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Read that link. It follows the RS and does not precede them. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, astrology is pseudoscience (hence calling it fringe is actually a bit of an understatement) because for a hundred years all respectable reliable sources have been saying so, and a few of them are of very high quality and examined astrology in depth. As a result, WP:FRINGE applies. You are now claiming that the situation has changed, based only on publications by a formally peer-reviewed journal that is not accepted by the scientific community at large, and on publications by astrologists or under the editorial control of astrologists. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG this is in no way sufficient to prove the absolutely amazing claim that astrology suddenly is no longer considered a pseudoscience.

Besides, don't you think if this was true it would have made quite a splash and would have been reported by the popular media? Where is the New York Times article reporting that scientists are beginning to accept astrology as scientific, and that universities are now considering the establishment of astrology chairs? Hans Adler 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First, WLU thank you for responding. Please could you clarify your status? Are you representing Wikipedia, the scientific community or a self-appointed guardian of the rules? I ask because you express your opinions and beliefs in the third person suggesting some form of authority.

Second let me clear up some misunderstandings, which are typical among many in the scientific community and others who know very little about astrology:

The current model for natal astrology is not based on celestial bodies exerting an ‘influence’. So your statement would not be incorrect of astrologers sixty years ago but is way off mark today. The scientific evidence supporting natural astrology, however suggests a causal relationship within the solar system (see my comments 12:32, 14 March 2011). When you question the probability that an object millions of miles away would have any influence on us as the main reason science ignores astrology, are you also claiming that the Sun at 93 million miles away does not have an enormous impact on our lives?
My argument is not based on a single study. I have cited 26 studies and can cite more. However, the sceptical refutation has been based on two studies for twenty five years. One was never published (see the thread Where is Dean's Time Twin Study? and the other Carlson now supports astrology. See previous comments. 12:32, 14 March 2011
You claim that there are “massive bodies of evidence that provides no rational basis for astrology to work.” Please clarify whether this is anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence and if so, please cite your two best studies to back this up.
Please clarify what you mean by statistical testing based on “old religious precepts”? I am sure you know that astrology is not a religion. It is based on evidence largely from observation, experience and empirical study rather than belief in an unprovable god and was persecuted by conventional religion as heresy using their internal logic and rules since the 10th century just as you are attempting to do today.
I trust you are not suggesting that I am a single purpose account pushing my personal agenda. I am a minor contributor in this debate which started between kwami and costmary. I am a software programmer and astrologer. I believe astrologers should not be discouraged from contributing to this page since they have the expertise in this subject and this will raise the quality of the information.
Wikipedia does not need to be a crystal ball as you claim in order to report facts from expert sources and to relegate ignorance and irrelevant comment.
Wikipedia’s rules are being abused in a circular argument. Wikipedia claims that astrology is pseudoscience because supposedly ‘authoritative’ but ignorant sources claim it to be. These sources echo the spurious claim because Wikipedia, a reputable source (edited in part by astrologers who are experts in the field), repeats the claim. It’s time to allow the real experts into this closed loop to inform others.
Wikipedia and all editors have to make truth, facts and evidence from experts a priority and its primary source. It cannot be led by any community outside their area of expertise. The scientific community are no different from other communities, they have prejudices and they are fallible like all human beings. You may be qualified to comment on a host of subjects, but in astrology you lack the basic information and your scepticism is therefore understandable.

If evidence was found that showed that the scientific community were largely ignorant about the basis of astrology and claims of astrologers, would you support inclusion of this relevant information in the interests of neutrality?

Thank you, Brangifer you have admirably summed up the sceptical case that astrology is a pseudoscience. It is because Brangifer says it is! Robertcurrey (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an informed amateur on science and an experienced editor on wikipedia. Essentially any comment I make about the science and substance could be discounted on a factual basis, but the policy-based reasons can not be ignored. The fact that it is trivially easy to demonstrate astrology is considered paradigmatic, textbook pseudoscience means we clearly give that perspective due weight. As for the rest of your comments, I'm not interested in debating and wikipedia is not a forum. The sources easily verify astrology being pseudoscience, that's the perspective we take in the article.

Brangifer, Hans Adler and myself are all experienced editors who have dealt with many a pseudoscientific topic. We understand that mainstream sources are more important than single studies - it doesn't matter if astrology is true or not, it matters if we can verify the opinion of the scientific community. We can. That's where it stops. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that the Fringe POV pushers have been adequately answered several times already and continuing to discuss this with them will only be an immense waste of time for anyone involved. Policy WP:DUE and guidelines WP:FRINGE are clear on how to treat this material. Unless something drastic happens to the community consensus in the area of pseudoscience there is nothing more to talk about.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been watching this debate, and would have contributed myself were it not already made clear by so many others than those wishing to deny that astrology is seen as a pseudoscience are arguing in the wrong place, with the wrong people. Until the scientific community classifies it as anything other than pseudoscience, Wikipedia policy requires that we describe it as such. Either convince the scientific community, or argue for a change of Wikipedia policy - but this isn't an appropriate forum to do either. I suggest that this debate be closed, as irrelevant to discussion on any Wikipedia article conforming to present policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While it is understandable that some of you want to cut off informed dissent about the lead of this article, please consider one more argument. The problem with this debate is that it just begins to scratch the surface of an entrenched bias against astrology by a number of editors here, reflecting a wider community bias. There are two good reasons for such a bias. One is the proliferation of astrology among charlatans in centuries past, the other is the development of sun-sign astrology and related newspaper predictions in the 20th century, both of which have served to reduce the credibility of astrology as a whole. More importantly, while these aspects of astrology raised legitimate concerns, the influence on the entire field of astrology is what concerns others. It seems astrology is generally considered as a false science in the scientific community. This is more troubling as domains of astrology that carry more promise and even enjoy respect, such as eastern horoscopic astrology and the research tradition based on the seminal contributions of Gauqelin and Ertel, are also affected by this bias. In short, due to bad practices within the field of astrology, the field as a whole has been written off as nonsense. The discussion has brought to light that the biases are so entrenched as to make its adherents impervious to appeals for an objective reconsideration. In addition to the editors here, this is true of the scientific community in general. The condemnation of astrology and its relegation to the scrap heap of failed knowledge only serves to reduce interest by legitimate scholars into the basic research question if cosmic influences affect life on Earth at the level of human conciousness and experience. The research question in general is thus getting short shrift by those who should encourage further research in it, rather than discourage it. As relates to the text in the lead, this feature of astrology, the viewpoint of those finding validity in astrology as a field of knowledge, needs to be mentioned in the lead. There are documented objections of scholars, from Feyerabend to Ertel, to the scientific bias against astrology. It's mention is important to round out a discussion concerning the legitimaty of astrology as a field of study. Erekint (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The bias isn't from editors, it's from modern scientists. Again, this is verifiable through reference to reliable sources. The real "problem" is that astrology isn't taken seriously, and proponents wish it were. That's not wikipedia's problem though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, find a reliable source which summarizes the changes in astrology over the last 50 years and we can include it in a sub-section on modern changes to astrology. This won't change the fact that astrology as most people understand it is not scientific, and as scientists understand it is not scientific, and as reliable sources understand it is not scientific. Wikipedia does not exist to write great wrongs, and if the Wikipedia article dissuades people from majoring in Scientific Astrology because all mainstream and reliable sources consider it pseudoscience, then that is what happens. If you want to change the world, go elsewhere. Wikipedia reflects the last good configuration presented in reliable sources, and nothing more. Seriously, go change the world, but you can't do it here unless writing a sourced, verifiable encyclopedia is your choice of activism. Ocaasi (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, your characterisation is self serving. An alternative interpretation is that the sceptics are activists pushing a self-righteous agenda, with a POV, which includes claiming greater consensus in the scientific community than really exists (a lot of people actually have an open mind on the issue) and citing hundreds of sources while not being able to produce one.Erekint (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, regarding you authorities Feyerabend and Ertel: Ertel is writing outside his field of expertise and is only published in dubious places while doing so. Feyerabend proposed taking astrology seriously as part of a programme of "democratic relativism" in which scientists are subject to supervision by committees of lay citizens and their role in society is "more than balanced by magicians, or priests, or astrologers". You should really decide: Do you want astrology to be a science, or do you want pseudoscience and religion have equal status to science in society? Hans Adler 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your insight into Feyerabend is at odds with his suggestions concerning astrology, in his rebuke of the statement of 186. Have you read it? A better description of him would be to say that he was a methodological anarchist, distrusting of authoritarian structures and straitjacket methods to have a monopoly on defining what is true. He would not have liked to see how like minded editors control the Wikipedia entry, as is the present case, at the exclusion of other viewpoints. You also seem to know precious little about the scientific work which you pronounce on. Have you read any of these studies? Have you seen and pondered the diagram showing the distribution of Mars in studies of the Mars effect? If so, what did you think? If a scientist, like Ertel, is trained in psychology and statistics, and has dedicated decades of his working life to a question involving both fields, how can you state that he is writing outside of his field of expertise? You also create some false dichotomy of choices. Certainly, knowing what I know of astrology and the limits of scientific materialism, I would suggest that both sides adopt a modest approach when pronouncing on the other. It is a pity there is not a single editor here who seems to have the authority and sagacity to devise a way out of this debate, such that not only one side but both sides are given vent for their viewpoints on this topic. If anything, the other pro-astrology editors, have shown evidence of moderation in their proposals but the sceptics play hardball in refusing the changes because their numbers allow it. The real losers in that situation are the readers and the cause of knowledge. Erekint (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)