Talk:Astrology

Please read before starting Welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are: Pseudoscience ♦ Due and undue weight ♦ Making necessary assumptions ♦ Giving "equal validity". These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are 'No Original Research' (WP:NOR) and 'Cite Your Sources' (WP:CITE). Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.

Pseudoscientific and disproven?

Currently, the lede defines astrology as a pseudoscience. So what's a pseudoscience?

 “Under the criterion of falsifiability, first proposed by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, astrology is a pseudoscience.” (Astrology, sub-section ‘Demarcation’)

Ah, ok, so the criterion of pseudoscience is falsifiability. Or rather, if we're going to be careful about it, for Popper falsifiability is the criterion of the scientific and its lack is the mark of the pseudoscientific—presumably that is what the sentence above is meant to mean. From an article elsewhere on here (Philosophy of science, sub-section ‘Defining science’):

 “Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.”

So far so clear. But then Astrology also contains passages like this:

 ‘The scientific community (…) considers [astrology] a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.’ 

Or:

 ‘Where [astrology] has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions, they have been falsified.” 

Or:

 ‘The study, published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."’

Hm. Wasn’t the point about the term pseudoscience—from Popper′s point of view, at least—that he needed some term to describe claims that are put forward as scientific but are not, as he saw the matter, genuinely scientific because not even capable of being shown to be wrong? Like, if I put forward a theory and we experiment, and try as we might we fail to make it fit the data, then we have not shown, according to Popper, that the theory was pseudoscientific. On the contrary, it was good science precisely because it was capable of being empirically tested and found wanting.

So on the one hand we have Popper saying, roughly, ‘astrology is pseudoscience because its claims aren’t falsifiable’ (subsection entitled ‘Demarcation’), and on the other, ‘the scientific community’ appearing to say, ‘astrology is pseudoscience and we’ve falsified its claims (because we’ve falsified them?).’

Is ‘the scientific community’ wrong when it (?) says that astrology has been falsified? Or is astrology perhaps scientific after all (but false)? Could Popper be wrong about the criterion of demarcation? Or is ‘the scientific community’ just using the term psuedoscientific in a different way to Popper? Or might the article itself be in need of clarification? Does it trade on unexamined equivocations in the term pseudoscience? Or does it, perhaps also, lean too heavily on the phrase ‘scientific community’ while ignoring the complexities that lie behind that phrase?

Maybe someone with the necessary privileges will be able to do something to disentangle the threads a little.

Help is to be gotten, IMHO, from Astrology and science and the comparatively excellent article on de.wikipedia.org. Aingotno (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your application of Popper's ideas is naive. Astrologers say things like, "the stars guide our fate", which is unfalsifiable. When you ask them how, they may say things like, "People born in the time interval X to Y are more likely to be Z", which is also unfalsifiable since all we can prove is that the effect is so close to zero that we cannot find it, but not that it is exactly zero (because that is not how measurement works). When they say falsifiable things like, "People born in the time interval X to Y are twice as likely to be Z", those will be falsified as soon as someone checks. A pseudoscience does not stop being pseudoscience just because some of its claims are falsifiable.

Also, the demarcation problem has been looked into by others since Popper.

Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your deductions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, except of course that the sourcing in this article for how and why astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience is rather weak, and represented in ways that are quite undue. The article tends to contradict itself when both saying that in contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology has not responded to falsification through experiment (in a seeming acceptance in wiki-voice of Popper's identification of 'scientific' with 'falsifiable') and that scientific testing of astrology has been conducted. It's quite clearly an artefact of the tendentious way in which this section has been written: in its zeal to declare astrology a pseudoscience in all possible ways, it wants to have its cake and eat it, too (as an aside, Astrology and science suffers even more from this).

Moreover, Aingotno's 'deductions' are actually also made in eminently reliable sources. For example, Sven Ove Hansson in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Science and Pseudo-Science" article writes that Popper’s demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science [...] and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific [...]. Strictly speaking, his criterion excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable. According to Larry Laudan [...], it “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions”. Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted.

It may be worth rewriting the section a bit based on Hansson and other sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To hopefully be a little bit clearer, I'm making an observation and a suggestion. The observation is that there's a three-way tension between the categorization of astrology as pseudoscience, the references to Popper and falsification, and the references to empirical testing of astrological claims. The suggestion is that the article be reorganized in order to clarify at least a couple of the ways in which different people have subsumed astrology under the(ir) concept(s) of pseudoscience.

As you say, Hob Gadling, exponents of astrology have said different things at different points in time, and empirical researchers have done likewise. And as your source shows, Apaugasma (thanks for the citation!), the same goes for philosophers of science. The history of all of this is obviously complex. Necessarily, the article has to reduce this complexity -- somehow. It has to select and connect in its own way. It should be based on and cite its sources; that goes without saying! But given any collection of source materials, intelligence still has to be applied in bringing together and articulating what they say. For better or worse, there's no source material that can relieve us of the task of integrating our source materials.

Hob Gadling, why don't you use the explanation in your comment here as a basis for helping to disentangle the presentation in the article itself? -- Aingotno (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources and not on what I say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aingotno: please just ignore Hob Gadling's disparaging comments; there's nothing constructive to be expected from them. Instead, be bold and update the article. I think your observations are astute, and you have my support! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Au contraire mon ami, it would be foolish to ignore Hob, one of our experienced editors in this field. They have much support from other experienced editors too!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, if you are here to comment on the content, please do so. Your expression of support is meaningless without it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, my support goes to consensus. Your support has no reliable sources. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

“Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.”

That is what Popper said. It was his reason for calling astrology pseudoscience. Astrology is still considered pseudoscience, but not necessarily exactly for this reason.

The scientific community (…) considers [astrology] a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.

This is true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

Where [astrology] has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions, they have been falsified.

Also true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

The study, published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."

Also true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

Popper tried his criterion on Freud, Darwin, and Marx too, and found their ideas unfalsifiable. But he misunderstood Darwin, so he was wrong there. Popper is not the final arbiter on what is science or pseudoscience, but in most cases consensus says he was right, although not necessarily for the right reasons. Astrology is one of those cases. And no, we will not remove the fact that it was and is viewed as pseudoscience from the article. Popper is historically important, so I think he should stay. Maybe we can explain that the reasons for considering astrology pseudoscience have changed a bit since then, if we find sources.

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. All the time, unexperienced editors think the sources contradict each other and want to change articles accordingly, but that won't do. It does not matter if editors second-guess reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hansson in the SEP says that Popper's criterion of falsifiability excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable and states that astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted. In other words, Hansson is pointing out the perceived contradiction.

What Hansson is saying can be set out as follows. If all pseudoscience is irrefutable, and if astrology is not irrefutable (because it has in fact been refuted), then astrology is not pseudoscientific. Since the argument is logically valid, and since the conclusion is false, one of the two premises must also be false. Hansson thinks that it's the first premise that is false, i.e., he thinks that at least some pseudosciences, like astrology, are indeed refutable. But that must also mean that Popper would be wrong in characterizing all pseudoscience as irrefutable: if we are to follow Popper's view, we must hold on to the idea that astrology is irrefutable.

This is, of course, because Popper denied the possibility of basing scientific knowledge on inductive reasoning, and would not agree that we can infer a refutation of a 'some x cause y' claim from any limited set of failed verifications that x causes y. On the other hand, to say that astrology (construed as a 'some x cause y' claim) is false because a large amount of tests have been conducted, all of which have failed to produce evidence of any x causing y, is to accept the validity of inductive reasoning in science.

Despite the fact that this is an often-used rhetorical device (which has also crept into our article here), one cannot consistently both claim that something is not even false, and that it is false. However, one can claim that in a set of things some are 'not even false' (i.e., unfalsifiable) while some are false (i.e., in fact falsified), and it seems to me that astrology is such a set that contains elements of both. Unfortunately Hansson, who's primarily out to refute Popper, doesn't comment on this. Perhaps we can find another source that does.

In any case, no one is suggesting to remove the fact that astrology is viewed as a pseudoscience from the article. Rather, the suggestion is to rewrite the paragraph on Popper in such a way that Hansson's critique of Popper is incorporated, so that our article too will no longer appear to be contradicting itself by affirming in wikivoice both Popper's view (astrology cannot be falsified) and a view which directly contradicts Popper's view (astrology has in fact been falsified). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

When Hansson says, astrology [..] has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted. he means that specific astrological claims that have been tested have been thoroughly refuted. If you define astrology as the set of testable claims it makes, then, yes, it is falsifiable. But astrology ia also the general idea that there is a connection between above and below. That is what Popper means, and that is not falsifiable. All this is pretty boring, and you don't need to spread a simple modus tollens over several sentences.

I have discussed astrologers, and most of the things they say are "not even false". They talk about synchronicity and other cloudy things and try hard not to be nailed down. Falsifiable claims are made by rookie astrologers and by the ones who don't care about being contradicted. But that is neither here nor there.

Better just suggest an improvement to the article, and we can stop all this WP:OFFTOPIC stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a common experience that astrologers make both unfalsifiable and false claims. That's not the point here though. The point is that while for Popper astrology is only pseudoscience in so far as it is unfalsifiable (because, as Hansson points out, for Popper falsifiablity is a sufficient criterion for being scientific), for others (like Hansson) the fact that it has been falsified is crucial to its being pseudoscience. The point is that these views are mutually contradictory, and that our article should explain this, instead of affirming both views in wikivoice as unproblematically true.

But then other sources than Hansson should also be consulted, and Popper's view should be contrasted more clearly with those of Kuhn, Thagard, and indeed Hansson himself. I'm not at all up to this right now. Moreover, I have some serious reservations about the due-ness in this article of elaborating so much about the various ways in which philosophers of science have defined pseudoscience, in which astrology is nothing more than a favorite example. It's all quite tangential, and that whole section should be heavily trimmed, in my view.

But I will not argue about any of that now. I just wanted to confirm to Aingotno that the problematic tension they perceive in the article is indeed there, and that it has been explicitly addressed by Hansson. Perhaps they or someone else do want to go through the literature and rewrite some of this stuff. I don't have anything to add to that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Poppers famous falsifiability criteria for science is one definition, but its hardly the only one, just the most famous one. Other philosophers have proposed many other definitions of the scientific method, with Paul Feyerabend going as far as suggesting there is no scientific method and that the work of scientists are fairly anarchic. (The truth is, its both true and not true if you separate the institutional practice of science and the individual practice). The point Im getting at is, dont get hung up on it. Astrology is a pseudoscience because its believed *despite* the evidence against it. An experiment to prove or disprove astrology is science, refusing to accept the science and keeping on believing, is pseudo-science. Duckmonster (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

Add to the "External links" a link to the exhibition of the Library of the Observatory of Paris "Sharing the sky : astronomers and astrologers in the West" (https://bibnum.obspm.fr/exhibits/show/astronomy_astrology/introduction) with this mention : "An exhibition of the Library of the Observatory of Paris about the shared history of astronomy and astrology around the Mediterranea." 145.238.197.116 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Astrology and "pseudo-science"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please delete the "pseudo-science". This is biased. It is about the celestial bodies and our relationship to them. The sun alone projects nuclear ions that radiate heat for the Earth's life and vegetation. I am a Scientist with a long-time interest in ancient science and history. Godthåbsgade (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that settles it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought that the Sun transmitted it's beneficial goodness via the luminiferous aether, rather than by projecting 'nuclear ions'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed biased. Science takes sides. If you are wrong, then science is biased against you. You are wrong. Duckmonster (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Until there is a scientific explanation of astrology, or a law of physics is assigned to some aspect of astrology, it has to be classified as a pseudo-science. It may very well be that astrology is currently relegated to being a pseudo-science due to the inability of the scientific establishment to approach astrology scientifically, but if that is the case, no change of status can occur until such a situation is remedied. This topic cannot be about the credibility of science.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrymacro (talk • contribs) 00:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Celestial influence

The fact lunar influence is true. I did an experiment during full, waxing and waning moon phases. The results were my temperature and pulse went up slightly. Of course the Earth does have a gravitational pull to the sun. The fact I have proof for gravitational magnetic field influences, I think there should at least be a legit theory. Godthåbsgade (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not original research, this is the most irredeemably useless "experiment" I've heard of. You can't conduct experiments on your own physiology, and there's no way to attribute the cause of any difference to the stage of the moon. Staggering to me that anyone considers this a valid case for astrology. Cpotisch (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that breaks our rules on original research, but if you can find an independent source and/or have your results published you may have a chance of inclusion. Britmax (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Earth does have a gravitational pull to the sun. That sort of reasoning is a pretty common red herring used by astrologers, although usually it is about tides. It says essentially, "Unplausible connections between A (outside Earth) and B (on Earth) are plausible because there are also existing and proven connections between C (outside Earth) and D (on Earth)." That does not work. Connections between two things are not contagious and do not jump to two other things.

So, even if original research were allowed, this one would fail. Find a reliable source. (Prediction: You will not find one.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

ADD SKEPTICISM:

Skepticism:

Many believe that Astrology does not work and it a pseudoscientific practice. Astrology can seem like a natural science as it studies the stars, however it is not. Astrology does not have any verifiable mechanism and it can be difficult to approach critically. Scientists must acknowledge facts and their hypothesis against conflicting theories using scientific methods. Astrologers fail to acknowledge facts as there are no real understanding or facts supporting astrology. Astrologers struggle to come to a consensus on their hypothesis' as they have many different claims as to why astrology works ranging from the magnetic field of the earth to the alignment of other planets. Some researchers claim that the reason astrology works is still unknown and they are still searching for it. Despite many trials, astrology has never demonstrated any scientific evidence or effectiveness. Astrology fails the criteria of falsibility as well. Therefore, science is not considered a science, but instead it is a pseudoscience.

Astrological predictions seem to work because they are vague and can apply to any situation and lack predictive power. This is somewhat due to the lack of consistency in the research and astrologers understanding of the subject. Astrologers have a vague hypothesis on what the stars can predict and most astrologers seem to have a different indication to that effect.

There is also a lack of physical evidence that links human behaviour to the constellations. There is no scientific evidence that supports these claims and no theories that are consistent with theories that have already been tested and proved. JenniferRunions (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, on the pseudoscience

As per WP:DOIT and WP:NPOV, I have revised the lede from:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

to

Astrology is an ancient ritual, religious, and divinatory system that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects. It is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators.

The reasoning here is simple:

• Astrology predates the scientific method by several thousand years, unlike genuine pseudosciences like reflexology and homeopathy; and
• Contemporary readings which model astrology as cultural astronomy (cf. ethnoastronomy, archaeoastronomy) rather than simply "false" or a protoscience

Will clean it up a bit, perhaps, as well.

--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Added a source with an explanation of the philosophy of science reading vs. anthropology-ethnography reading.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your bold edits are not supported by your comments here, so per WP:BRD I have restored the NPOV version extant. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How do my comments not support my bold edits? As anthropologist Clive Ruggles notes in Ancient Astronomy: An Encyclopedia of Cosmologies and Myth, while astrology is "anathema" to modern astronomers (who are not social scientists,) it is a genuine object of study within archaeastronomy. Full disclosure here, that while I am an anthropologist and thus critical of applying the term "pseudoscience" to cultural and religious systems, I do not think the lede should communicate only that interpretation, but should show a neutral description of the contrary models. Astrology is indeed widely understood as a pseudoscience, though not universally so, especially outside of the hard sciences.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 07:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying "it is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators" rather than the original definitive claim of astrology is pseudoscience, which is a proven fact, is not supported by the highest quality sources available. This suggests that the idea that astrology is pseudoscience, while widely believed, is actually in doubt (it's not). Therefore, the edit you made wasn't appropriate and the original version was correct. I agree with Roxy restoring the original lede sentence. Have a nice day. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a very naïve view. Firstly, it ignores major epistemological debates within the philosophy of science, notably the demarcation problem -- the philosophy of science is not a hard science (most would argue it is not a science at all). Whether it is appropriate to consider astrology as pseudoscience is absolutely debated, as I originally noted. Second, it is ignorant to modern models of traditional knowledge as developed and applied in anthropology and ethnography. I have once again revised the lede sentence, indeed the whole introductory section, this time with more high-quality academic sources and more context as to the discussion and those involved with it. To give a more neutral perspective, I also added (and moved) a couple of sentences to highlight the arguments as to why astrology is a pseudoscience. On the other side of the debate, these are the sources I have used:

• Astronomies and Cultures, edited by Clive Ruggles and Nicholas J. Saunders, published by University Press of Colorado
• A Brief History of Ancient Astrology, edited by Roger Beck, published by Wiley-Blackwell
• Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, edited by Clive Ruggles, published by Springer
• Ancient Astrology, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine Under the Roman Empire, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• "Why did Feyerabend defend astrology? Integrity, virtue, and the authority of science", in Social Epistemology 30.4

Once again, these are not being used to argue that astrology is not a pseudoscience, but provide a wider description of scholarly inquiry on the subject.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 09:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, this part of User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's text is a clear improvement:

:Astrology is an ancient ritual, religious, and divinatory system that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

Describing astrology in the milennia predating moderns science as a pseudoscience is not reasonable. Possibly, claims could be seeks or pruports instead. However, the last bit,

It is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators.

may be too vague. Perhaps,

In a modern context, astrology is a pseudoscience. ? --Nø (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading the lead as it stand now, I think it creates a false conflict between the view of astrology in natural sciences vs. the view in the humanities (pls forgive me if my labeling of the two sides is inappropriate). I think making a distinction between ancient (pre-modern) astrology and the modern resurgence of astrology resolves that conflict. Of course, you can find unbalanced views in both communities - scientists who flatly refuse that ancient astrology is anything other than a pseudoscience, and people in the humanities who refuse that astrology in any way may be considered a pseudoscience - but still, I think the distinction between ancient and modern will make things clearer.--Nø (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The conflict is real, though. Anthropologists and ethnologists don't only study people and cultures of the past -- Western, Chinese, Indian, and Mesoamerican forms of astrology are extant and these are relevant objects of study outside of a pseudoscience case study. Those sources outline the critique as seen from the social sciences.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smtayl5 (article contribs).