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.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience (2006)
In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration. Generally considered 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. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lead again

Noformation reverted a change I made to the lead, commenting, "Cultures is inaccurate; astrology can be part of what defines a culture, not a product of it." I'm sorry, but I find that comment to be completely meaningless, and I fail, in any case, to see its relevance. How is it supposed to show that "peoples" is more appropriate than "cultures"? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the other objection (IE-speakers d n invent astrology), and as it now stands, I don't think it would make much difference if we used 'cultures'. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the lead needs to be removed. 'Astrology makes no attempt to find solutions for its problems' does not 'follow.' What I mean is, its an obtuse statement that can't be deciphered, and frankly looks a bit biased. The statement portends to suggest that astrology has problems. This would be much better moved into a controversy section, not in the lead. If the statement is moved, not just deleted, Astrology's 'problems' should be explained more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The fact that astrology is pseudoscience must definitely be mentioned prominently in the lead. Hiding it in a "criticism section" would be incredibly dishonest and against policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking more to the statement of astrology's 'problems.' The 'problems' are lumped in with the pseudoscience statement, and should be separated. I have an issue with the problem statement because, well, its so arbitrary. There isn't anything specific to Astrology, simply 'it has problems it can't address.' What problems is this statement referring too? Why doesn't Astrology address these problems? These are questions I think in my head as I read this statement, and very much why I see this statement as biased. It portrays Astrology as irresponsible but supplies nothing to back it up. I propose separating the 'problem' statement and the pseudoscience statement; the problem statement should be deleted or, if applied with more detail moved to a controversy section. What is everyone's thoughts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParksTrailer (talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Astrology as a science

There is a problem with the lines: While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.[4][5]

To keep this in, you need to provide references that show that astrologers do generally consider their subject to be a science. My experience is that generally they do not do this, in the same way that a Christian or a Muslim or a novelist or a painter would probably not consider their subject to be a science. Dharmaruci (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been amply talked about in the talk page archives, and yes, modern astrologists often make claims of scientific validity for astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, whether they think or say that is irrelevant. It's pseudoscience because it makes scientifically testable claims which are not scientifically tested. Intelligent Design is also pseudoscience, but generic Xanity or Islam are not, because they do not make scientifically testable claims. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the user after warning not to vandalize the page again (blanking whole section a 2nd time after POV edit had been reverted twice). — kwami (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I accept that these edits should have been discussed on the talk page. WP:TALK However, we have to accept that new editors do not know the procedures for editing or how messages on the talk page work especially if it goes to an IP when you have opened a new account. WP:NEWBIES If Dharmaruci were to look back at the edits since September, he will discover that many were done without discussion on the talk page and almost all were without consensus. Various editors including myself had some false warnings on our User Page WP:HUSH. This was the time when you should have been using your administrative powers. What you have described as vandalism, other editors here would consider bold editing. WP:BOLD I trust that you will allow Dharmaruci to contribute to the talk page and will be unblocked from editing within a reasonable time frame. (The OTT use of links is mainly for the benefit of any new editors.)

Even if a number of editors have been unreasonably blocked or frustrated by POV wikilawyering WP:LAWYER, there is still no consensus on the contents of this page as it is not neutral WP:NPOV or Encyclopedic.

With this in mind, I plan to make a minor edit and will discuss it here if people disagree. Robert Currey talk 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't intend to play with the pseudoscience statement, again. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also hope he's not recruiting shills from his social media networks, again. Skinwalker (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-site, the blocked user has confirmed that he had made the edits in question in direct response to Robert Currey's recruitment drive last March. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think not - since my advice to would-be editors last winter was to learn and follow WP rules and not go to the Astrology page unless they were already an experienced WP editor. If anything, I think it put him off editing for 10 months and his claim is that he was prompted by the current state of the Astrology page.

Blocking editors without justification is the most powerful recruiting drive. Robert Currey talk 20:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience again again.

I note again the Pseudoscience in the lede is being argued over. I've reverted to the last stable version, and now I'm prepared to talk here. I would note that the section as it stands now is reliably sourced, and that to adjust said sources to be the weasely "It has been put forth that astrology bears," is not really in line with said sources, and is terrible passive voice. Please express your concerns with the passage here. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked the particular phrasing of that sentence. It would be nice if we should just succinctly state that astrology is bullshit (in a more encyclopedic way obviously) rather than the clunky wording we have now. Something like, "astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities, instead being relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlines in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood basic aspects of biology and physics" I think this sums up the issue nicely, thoughts? SÆdon^talk 23:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that, though it is a bit more than just newspaper horoscopes. The details of why it's a pseudoscience, which we currently have in the lead only because of the POV war, would really be better in the text. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have problems with it. Saying that Astrology is a pseudoscience is basically the same thing as saying that it is not taken seriously by the scientific community, so "astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities" is like saying the same thing twice in slightly different ways. More importantly, it's clearly true that astrology exists in a variety of different forms, and I don't thing it's either accurate or helpful to say that it's "relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and I added the text. Feel free to improve, I think it can be adjusted to incorporate your points and will still sound better than what we have now. SÆdon^talk 23:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that the wording you used was very good, and I have questions about how accurate the content was. Please let's work this out carefully on the talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the redundancy a problem. Most people don't really know what pseudoscience is, and this helps clarify. Otherwise we're just spouting jargon. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my main reason for reverting. I do have doubts about the factual accuracy of Saedon's version - it ignores, just for one example, professional astrology, which is not the same thing as those sun sign columns in newspapers. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think your point can be incorporated into the new version and it would be better than what we have now? I don't disagree with your assessment, I just think that the new version can be fixed. SÆdon^talk 23:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re "Please let's work this out carefully on the talk page" - don't worry, I wasn't planning on edit warring this in :). SÆdon^talk 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To your points. (i) While pseudoscience is never taken seriously by the scientific community, it's not the same statement. If those were equivalent then it would be akin to saying that "astrology is a pseudoscience and because it is a pseudoscience," but in fact my statement is that because astrology is a pseudoscience it is not taken seriously by the scientific community. (ii) I don't know how it's inaccurate to say astrology has been relegated to popular culture. It's not being pursued as an academic field by any serious scholarly body (with the exception of some schools in India, where political motivations based on superstition have allowed it to be taught in schools, but the Indian scientific community has rejected it just the same) and is only taken seriously by non-scientists. This is essentially what our article goes on to say, so per WP:LEDE it makes sense as a summary of the article. SÆdon^talk 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) on adding the same objection to my response. Newspaper horoscopes are a bit like the tide tables in the newspaper are to oceanology. They're the fortune cookies of astrology. I don't know this, but I suspect that many professional astrologers think they're bullshit, yet truly believe in astrology. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's probably true. How do we describe professional astrologers without giving undue weight to astrology? SÆdon^talk 00:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that astrology has been relegated to popular culture because professional astrology still exists - and it's not the same thing as popular culture. There are any number of ways in which astrology might be significant that aren't about sun sign columns or per se about popular culture (it's one of Camille Paglia's influences in Sexual Personae, a work of literary criticism - which is just a single example). I was about to mention the example of India, but you beat me to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, can you please find a way to fix the version I introduced to compensate for your points? SÆdon^talk 00:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's consider your version point for point: "Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities, instead being relegated to certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlines in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." I've no problem with the "pseudoscience" part, but everything from there needs to be qualified. "Not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities" leaves out India - and I'm sure we don't want to do that. Some mention of professional astrology would have to be added to "certain aspects of popular culture such as newspaper horoscopes." I'm unsure about the details of testing astrology, but I won't quibble over that, being a non-expert. I am aware that the part about astrology contradicting well understood, basic aspects of biology is contradicted by what Carl Sagan said on the subject - there may be no known way in which the planetary bodies could influence us in the way astrology requires, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't, since we don't know everything about how the universe works. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been trying to figure out a way to integrate your changes and haven't been able to do so without significantly expanding the paragraph and so I'm just going to remove that sentence entirely. Since you said you didn't object to the rest I assume we're good with the new wording. If you have any suggestions on how to readd that sentence with your concerns addressed (i.e. specific wording) then please edit it in. Thanks. SÆdon^talk 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You reverted again because you dislike that version, but above you outlined your problems and I addressed them. What do you dislike now? Also, what do you like about the current version? SÆdon^talk 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike nearly everything about your preferred version of the lead. To begin with, it removes sources. While the lead may not technically need sources, they do help to clarify matters, and removing them isn't the way to go. If you could propose a sourced version here, we could discuss that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disliking it is not an argument that holds much weight unless you have specific objections. As you said yourself, the lede does not technically need sources so long as it summarizes sourced statements in the article and this is the case, so sourcing is an irrelevant objection. SÆdon^talk 20:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I made my objections fairly clearly earlier. You have simply reinstated your preferred version, which is poorly written, without making any changes to address my concerns. I'm not interested in discussing matters if you insist on trying to force your changes through by edit warring, whatever ridiculous excuses you give for that. "It takes two to edit war" is a juvenile comment, implying as it does that something I do gives you an excuse for bad behavior. Apologize, then maybe we can make some progress. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't address your concerns? Your concern was that one clause of the statement was not factually accurate, I addressed this by removing that clause. Your other objections have been answered by myself and by Kwami. You went on to say "I'm unsure about the details of testing astrology, but I won't quibble over that," so I assume that the testing portion is not the problem, and I explained that the first sentence is not actually redundant because it is making a claim of cause and effect, not a repetition of the same claim . Your new objection is that it is not sourced, but since being sourced is not a requirement so long as it's sourced in the body it's not a relevant objection. What would you like me to address? I am vehemently against edit warring when the person reverting gives a valid reason to revert, but you just not liking it is not a valid reason without specifics. SÆdon^talk 20:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should listen to what the other fellow has to say first before deciding whether there's a "valid" reason for reverting? Or is a "valid" reason one you personally agree with? That's a very lame excuse for your bad behavior here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please address the points I made above regarding your objections. SÆdon^talk 20:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop making excuses for your edit warring. I don't accept your arguments, and had you bothered to try to understand what I was saying, you'd realize that I do indeed have "valid" reasons for reverting you, whether you like it or not. Your preferred version is, "Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." In comparison to the other version, that's vague and very badly written. The older version gave clear reasons why astrology is a pseudoscience; yours does not. You gave no reason at all for removing mention of the fact that astrology "makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations". It's quite unhelpful to say something like "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted", without further elaboration. You claim that your version is supported by the main text of the article; I'm skeptical of that. Exactly which parts support which statements? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a metaconversation about editwarring, I'm here to talk about content. So far two editors have expressed problems with the current wording, Kwami says above "The details of why it's a pseudoscience, which we currently have in the lead only because of the POV war, would really be better in the text." My version gives exact reasons why it's a pseudoscience: "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." There is nothing "vague" about my version at all, it very concisely and succinctly states the following facts: astrology is pseudoscience, it is not seriously studied by academia and no evidence exists to support it. The lede isn't supposed to delve into detail, it's supposed to summarize the respective sections of the article. The old version is difficult for someone not educated in the sciences to understand. For instance, the statement "is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations." would make no sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific background, while "contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is very clear. "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted" is supported by the section in which we describe the scientific testing that has been conducted. "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is supported by the Hawkings and Tyson refererences. SÆdon^talk 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of editor behavior is perfectly appropriate for the talk page. It's just tough if you don't like it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's appropriate for a noticeboard, article talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles. Please comment on content per WP:TPG#YES. SÆdon^talk 21:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I will comment on content. I will also comment on your behavior. Too bad if you don't like it. If you run to an admin and try to stop me, we'll see what happens. You're guilty of edit warring, and your behavior is obnoxious. I'm unmoved by assertions that the details of why astrology is a pseudoscience belong out of the lead, regardless of whether the assertion comes from Kwami or anyone else. I am not a scientific expert, but I have no trouble whatever understanding the statement that astrology is "selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" - maybe you shouldn't assume that readers are all likely to be sub-par morons? 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Polisher of Cobwebs (talk)

I am a biologist and I have only the slightest idea what that sentence means without making some assumptions, so if you as a non-scientist somehow grasp it then I imagine you have super sensory powers of mind reading because the sentence is not very clear. I don't consider our reader's comprehension to be sub-par and I never called anyone a moron, that is a strawman and in violation of WP:TPG#NO which states that one should "not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." Kwami's and my point is not simply an argument by assertion, it's based on WP:LEDE which states that greater detail should be covered in the body and not in the lede. SÆdon^talk 21:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Detail is a matter of degree. Whether any particular piece of information is appropriate to the lead or not should be subject to discussion, and you have not bothered to provide any reason at all for removing the information in question. So I will be restoring it, and undoing your other changes. Making the lead say that "conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is POV pushing, not because it reflects badly on astrology, but because it's contradicted by Sagan's views: "dismissing astrology because there was no mechanism (while 'certainly a relevant point') was not in itself convincing". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see that your interest is only in using obstructionist tactics to prohibit changes to the article and so rather than deal with you I will just call an RFC. SÆdon^talk 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Do what you like. You've been engaging in edit warring to push though a poorly written, POV version of the lead (despite what you claim, it clearly does not reflect the article fairly), and that's clear for all to see. For my part, I will be reverting you, if no one else does so before me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on change to pseudoscience summary in lede

The current wording is:

While astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science, it is a pseudoscience because it makes little attempt to develop solutions to its problems, shows no concern for the evaluation of competing theories, and is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations.

The wording I am proposing is:

Astrology is a pseudoscience and as such is not taken seriously by the academic or scientific communities. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted and no evidence has been found to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition. Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.

See Talk:Astrology#Pseudoscience_again_again for background to the dispute SÆdon^talk 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support change My argument: The old wording is clunky and hard for someone who doesn't have a background in science to understand. For instance, the statement "is selective in considering confirmations and dis-confirmations" would likely make little sense to someone who doesn't have a scientific background, or at least be vague enough to misunderstand (I do have a scientific background and I can attest that this phrasing is not something that we would use in scientific discourse).

Further, it delves into details about pseudoscience that are not appropriate for a summary per WP:LEDE and since this isn't an article about pseudoscience, but about astrology, it also doesn't make sense to summarize the entire science section of the article by only stating that astrology is a pseudoscience and what pseudoscience is, when the article goes into detail about the scientific research and whatnot.

The old wording ascribes a motive to astrology when it says "it makes little attempt..." Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything. One could maybe say that astrologers make little attempt to develop solutions to the problems with astrology, but as written the passage doesn't make a lot of sense.

I believe the new wording is more concise and succinct and better summarizes the article. Kwami agreed with the new wording and Polisher of Cobwebs objected but I found his objections to be contrary to WP:LEDE and mostly just obstructionist with a tad of WP:OWN, hence this RFC.

Lastly, as Kwami points out above, the old wording is a product of a POV edit war that took place, IIRC, in mid 2011 during a rather chaotic era of this page. SÆdon^talk 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change. The new wording is a significant improvement as a summary of the relevant section in the article, per WP:LEAD. I also agree that it is much easier to understand in general. Yobol (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support change In addition to Saedon's summary, I'd add that statements such as "astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" are self-evidently false. The proposed wording gives a more accurate impression of the mainstream view of astrology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose change The old wording is perfectly good, and should be easy for anyone of normal intelligence to understand. Saedon's complaint that "Astrology is a body of belief and as such cannot logically make attempts to do anything" is pedantic, and an irrelevant objection. "Astrology makes little attempt...", or words to that effect, is perfectly reasonable as a figure of speech. Finally, Saedon's version is POV and does not reflect the article accurately at all. Its statement that "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics" is contradicted by Carl Sagan's comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand Sagan's statement. He only said that he would not sign a statement that indicated Astrology was a pseudoscience based solely on the fact that astrologers don't provide a mechanism. This is a wholly different statement than astrology being a pseudoscience based on contradicting known mechanisms. Both are compatible with logical positivism, which is the basis of scientific thought. You said yourself that you don't have a science background so perhaps you'd be better off not attempting to interpret scientific statements. The rest of what you wrote is your usual style of WP:IJDLI coupled with argument by assertion. SÆdon^talk 23:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sagan's statement obviously contradicts the idea that astrology contradicts known principles of biology and physics - it implies that we don't know that there couldn't possibly be any way in which it could work. Oh, PS: logical positivism isn't the basis of scientific thought, it's a philosophy that has been largely abandoned for more than fifty years. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You may think you're dealing with people who don't know what they're talking about but that's not the case. Your argumentation is transparent and I seriously doubt it's fooling anyone. SÆdon^talk 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Polisher, could you kindly quote the Sagan statement you are referring to? I'm not moved by accusations of pedantry - we are trying to write an encyclopedia here: Correctness is of paramount importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full quote, POC should take care to note the last sentence especially:

In the middle 1970s an astronomer I admire put together a modest manifesto called `Objections to Astrology’ and asked me to endorse it. I struggled with his wording, and in the end found myself unable to sign, not because I thought astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It criticized astrology for having origins shrouded in superstition. But this is true as well for religion, chemistry, medicine and astronomy, to mention only four. The issue is not what faltering and rudimentary knowledge astrology came from,but what is its present validity. Then there was speculation on the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations – for example, the feeling of powerlessness in a complex,troublesome and unpredictable world – might explain why astrology is not generally given the sceptical scrutiny it deserves, but is quite peripheral to whether it works. The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant point but by itself it’s unconvincing. No mechanism was known for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Alfred Wegener in the first quarter of the twentieth century to explain a range of puzzling data in geology and palaeontology. (Ore-bearing veins of rocks and fossils seemed to run continuously from eastern South America to West Africa; were the two continents once touching and the Atlantic Ocean new to our planet?) The notion was roundly dismissed by all the great geophysicists, who were certain that continents were fixed, not floating on anything, and therefore unable to `drift’. Instead, the key twentieth-century idea in geophysics turns out to be plate tectonics; we now understand that continental plates do indeed float and `drift’ (or better, are carried by a kind of conveyor belt driven by the great heat engine of the Earth’s interior), and all those great geophysicists were simply wrong. Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken – although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.

— Carl Sagan

SÆdon^talk 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates "well-established laws of physics." I suppose someone might try to read into it the suggestion that astrology does violate them, but there's no direct statement to that effect there, and we shouldn't try to do original research. So I stand by my case that Saedon's version of the lead is POV. Those concerned with correctness please take note. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering I'm not using the Sagan quote as a source that's not relevant. You were attempting to use the Sagan quote to contradict what I wrote, but it doesn't contradict it, so now you are changing your argument to insinuate that the wording depends on the quote. It doesn't. It paraphrases the science section which is supported by a quote by the world's foremost physicist, Stephen Hawking, saying that astrology contradicts known physical facts. SÆdon^talk 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The Sagan quote obviously contradicts what you added to the lead, which was, "the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics." That implies that the hypothesis cannot conceivably be true, while Sagan is pointing out the contrary, that we don't know that it couldn't possibly be true. You're welcome to believe that there's no contradiction, but just making the assertion isn't helpful. And if you think I've changed my argument, then I'm afraid you've utterly misunderstood what I said. I haven't changed my position at all, and I find your comments bizarre. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that you're using anything you can to keep this change out of the article because you just don't like it. Frankly, it's WP:TE and I'm done arguing with you, especially since you've admitted both a lack of a scientific background and on your talk page you admit you lack detailed knowledge of astrology. There is so far a consensus of 4 editors who think the new wording is better and you are the only editor to hold your position. SÆdon^talk 01:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I suggest that rather than make ad hominem arguments, you address what I said. You accused me of changing my position, but as far as I can tell (and I think I know what my position is better than you do), I've done no such thing. It would help discussion if each side understands what the other side is saying, so would you mind please explaining to me again why you believe I've changed my mind? Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No I'm sorry but I feel as though I've spent enough time debating this with you; it will be up to uninvolved editors to determine the consensus on the matter. SÆdon^talk

Your conclusion from the Sagan quote was not only far from being obvious, it is patently false. Sagan's statement indicates that it is the current state of any pursuit that should be subjected to criticism, not its origins, and that speculation regarding the psychological motivations of the practitioners is also not a legitimate basis for criticism. He didn't like the tone of the statement he had been asked to sign, and he said that an absence of a known mechanism need not mean that a hypothesis is incorrect. All of these are generic comments about the nature of appropriate criticism. He isn't saying anything specifically about what astrology does or does not contradict, but instead is criticizing the manner in which astrology was being criticized for its origins, the mental state of those practicing it, and the lack of a mechanism. He does not address whether or not astrology contradicts known laws, only saying that the violation of such laws represent a weighty argument against a hypothesis. (It's probably also worth pointing out that we have learned a lot more about physics and biology in the past 42 years, so even were Sagan to have said in 1970 that astrology didn't violate the laws of biology or physics, which he didn't, it wouldn't necessarily apply today.) As to changing your position, he never said that you did, only that you had changed your argument, which you did (although perhaps you didn't intend to). Your original statement was of the nature of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording,' but after the full quote was given, you made a change to the claim saying, 'Sagan fails to support the new wording', which while superficially similar is actually quite different (and importantly places the burden of proof on the other party). That is when Saedon rightly indicated that you had changed your argument. You have since gone back to the original line of 'Sagan contradicts the new wording.' While you may not have changed your position, you have indeed changed your argument, twice. However, given that Sagan's quote neither contradicts nor is being used to support the new wording, its continued discussion is an all-together irrelevant distraction. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about Sagan. It quite simply makes no sense to say that astrology contradicts known principles of whatever if there could be a mechanism by which it works for all we know. I suppose that Sagan could have meant to say that astrology could work by some mechanism for all we know but that this does not mean that it does not contradict known principles, but that would be stupid, and since Sagan was a bright guy, I see no reason to suppose that he meant such an absurdity. Try giving Sagan (and me) credit for a little more intelligence. Also, thanks for attempting to explain to me what my own argument/position is or isn't, but I'm not really in need of such explanation. That Sagan (directly, or by implication) contradicts Saedon's version of the lead is what I've always said. Your comments about what my argument was/is are mumbo-jumbo as far as I'm concerned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with intelligence, Sagan's or yours. It does have to do with reading what Sagan said, and not reading into what Sagan said. Sagan was not addressing the basis for astrology, he was addressing the appropriate basis for scientific criticism and more specifically why he declined to sign a specific set of what he considered to be inappropriate criticisms written in an authoritarian tone. He wasn't going to engage in speculation about the mindset of the proponents or denigrate a field for having origins shared by much of science, and the lack of a mechanism need not mean a hypothesis is wrong - and so he wasn't going to sign a statement criticizing astrology on these grounds, because these are not valid grounds for criticism. One should not imply from this that, given a different statement that was based on appropriate scientific criticisms, he wouldn't have signed it willingly. His whole quote is just telling people that when you criticize something, you should use the right arguments (an example of which he provides at the very end of the quote). Whatever your position may always have been, your response to the complete quote was "Nowhere does the statement by Sagan say that astrology violates 'well-established laws of physics'". Saedon and I both read this as 'Sagan nowhere supports Saedon', which is different from 'Sagan contradicts Saedon'. If this is not what you meant, then at least we have that clear. Agricolae (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to address the question of the appropriate basis of scientific criticism of anything if you think it doesn't, or couldn't, have any possible basis. So the distinction you're making is false. Blathering posts in which you repeat what you've already said at tedious length are a waste of talk page space my friend. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the space was wasted because you still don't get it, my uncivil friend - Sagan wasn't really even talking about astrology in this paragraph. It just served as a pretext for him to discuss of the nature of correct scientific discourse. And the reason? Because he thought it was a point worth making. What more reason does one need? Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sagan wasn't really taking about astrology? Could have fooled me, because it looks as though he was talking about astrology. But in any case, your side is obviously winning the RFC, which I will respect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change. I think User:Yobol summed it up nicely. The change would improve the article even further if its second sentence was amended to read "Scientific testing of astrology has not found evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition.", but no matter, the proposed change will be a major improvement. Moriori (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support change. I would much prefer Moriori's version, though with just a minor change: "Scientific testing of astrology has found no evidence to support either the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological tradition." Agricolae (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a bit of a problem with the last sentence of the proposed wording: "Furthermore, the conjectural hypotheses that planetary bodies affect individual human lives contradicts well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.".

1)Not all forms of astrology are about effects on "individual lives", there is also "mundane astrology" and "financial astrology" where it is believed that the planetary cycles affect regions, countries or even the whole world. Just like the gravitational pull of the Moon on an individual bottle of water in your fridge is negligible, but taken over a much larger area, the same gravitational pull of the Moon adds up to tidal forces that are clearly not negligible. Actually, "mundane astrology" is the more older and common form, while the belief in "individual horoscopes" is a rather new development within "astrology".

2)The phrasing also suggests that physics and biology are understood so well already, that we can rule out the possibility of astrology. I am not sure that every scientist will be ready to make that contention.

Astrology is not considered a pseudoscience because the possibility of it has been disproven by science. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience because it has not produced sufficient independently verified evidence for any of its claims or theories, and is in fact making little or no efforts to do so. So, the first two sentences of the proposal are OK. But, I would suggest to change or remove the last phrase of the proposed edit, if this is to be accepted. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with some of your criticisms also but am ridiculously tired atm so give me till tomorrow and I'll comment and we can find a way to tweak it to address your points. In the meantime, if you have any particular changes in mind (aside from just deleting the sentence, because I think we can reword it rather than delete) please don't hesitate to present them. SÆdon^talk 08:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, there is time. Basically, the lede is supposed to give a brief summary of what is found in the rest of the article. So we also have to consider proper proportion and due weight. We definitely need this paragraph mentioning the pseudoscientific status of astrology. A third sentence can be used here, but I think it should be more broadly phrased. The biology-physics objection to "individual astrology" is a bit too specific for that purpose. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am unsure if the current 2 sources even actually verify the current text. No mention is made in the second source [1] of astrology superficially resembling science. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change to first two sentences, with 3rd sentence conditionally on the extra sourcing check mentioned above. I note that the sources to verify much of the content is already in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the change to the first two sentences, with the 3rd sentence removed. It doesn't belong in the lede, even IF it is adequately sourced. DigitalC (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support change I think it makes more sense and makes people that may trust astrology less likely to do so because of the wording. Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There are issues to resolve before putting the proposed text to a vote

Before anything is actioned by a vote editors should consider the fact that the proposed text is unsupportable. In fact the proposer of the alteration reveals a worrying motivation in the comment he made when he started proposing changes – “It would be nice if we should just succinctly state that astrology is bullshit (in a more encyclopedic way obviously) rather than the clunky wording we have now.” (SÆdon 23:20, 8 May 2012). Actually, I don’t see how the wording was clunky.

Wikipedia’s purpose is to provide objective, impartial and verifiable information that is free from prejudice and bias. If Saedon’s motivation is not in line with that he should resist from editing this page. I have included a reference in the article text which demonstrates that academic communities take a very different view of the subject than the one they are claimed to take in the lede. Academic communities adopt a scholarly attitude and it would be an unsupportable change to claim that they do not take the study of this subject seriously. In addition, to imply that scientific communities don’t take seriously any subject they concern themselves with is just a ridiculous nonsense point to make. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have re-added text that is undue for reasons I have already stated. You can not say that "The history and cultural impact of astrology remains of interest to scholars for reasons summarized by David Pingree" when it is very obvious from the quote that this is in fact no summary but him stating his own position with I would argue,.... IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for appearing to give no edit-reason. This was a mistake based on catching up again with WP procedures and not intentional (and doing two things at once). Let me explain here so you understand - you took out the quote from David Pingree, who held the reputation of being, without doubt, the leading academic scholar in the relevant field. He was also, BTW, quite clear and outspoken in the fact that he was not a believer of astrology (so no bias on his part - he merely represents the academic approach to this subject). When Pingree presents an argument, it becomes a definitive stance within his community. There are numerous scholars and notable academics who take seriously their research into astrology for the reasons Pingree outlined. To quote Pingree is to quote the most significant and reliable source, and it is a matter of interest to anyone who turns to this page for information on the history of astrology - why else is the cultual impact of astrology on the development of science of such interest to academics? Since some editors want to present a false scenario they should see this quote which proves otherwise. We cannot state that the academic community does not take the subject seriously when it clearly does. I suggest that before anyone else change the text to state that the academic community does not approach the subject seriously, they present a reference of similar weight by which to justify a comment which (I would argue) makes a spurilous assertion. As a WP editor I think it is only right to remove unverifyable comments and that is why I reverted what appeared to be a hasty change on your part. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Note; you have inappropriately rolled back my edit, this is clearly inappropriate per WP:BRD while we are discussing the issue here. rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism not good faith edits. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting him when it is clearly his own opinion is inappropriate, if he was summing up the consensus it would be stated. His use of I would argue, indicates clearly that his opinion isn't the consensus but his own opinion. The reference does not support the text you have added. IRWolfie- (talk)

Re the roll-back - explained in my post above. There are degree courses on the history and cultural impact of astrology, and many notable professors of classics and other fields of study are continually publishing papers on the subject. To suggest otherwise is false I'm afraid, and to suggest that scholars engage in such research without taking it seriously is obviously innapropriate. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what you think is wrong or false if you do not have the sources to back it up. What we need is reliable sources, not original research on whether Pingree's quote reflects the reasons why Astrology is of academic interest. I note from the quote that he also does not appear to be directly discussing astrology either. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he specified astrology and astral omens, which is of direct relevance I'm sure you'll agree. In any case, though I didn't personally feel it was necessary have added another reference in response to your request for further citation. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The first source appears to give a different reason for the study compared to the second. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Don't lose your credibility by inventing more reasons to pretend not to see what is written in reliable sources. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)