Talk:Astrology

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience 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.

Please read before starting First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This article 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: NPOV: Pseudoscience NPOV: Undue weight NPOV: Making necessary assumptions NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines. 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). Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

'pseudoscience' in first line

I'm sure this has been argued ad nauseum, but I haven't been following the article. We've got an edit war going on over whether the article should start out "Astrology is a pseudoscience/pseudoscientific ...". If that is left out, we're left with the statement "Astrology is considered a pseudoscience or superstition by the scientific community ..." in the 2nd paragraph.

Now, WP:Fringe states,

When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views.

That would be violated if we leave 'pseudoscience' out of the 1st line, as we then say present astrology as if it were a reasonable field, with the disclaimer that BTW it is considered a pseudoscience by a particular faction, as if there were equal but opposing views. As a serious encyclopedia, we do need to be clear that it is simply a pseudoscience, correct? (I'm speaking of the present day, of course; there was no such distinction in the pre-scientific era.) — kwami (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is first and foremost a set of beliefs and systems. It is, secondarily to that, considered pseudoscientific to the scientific community. The article already reflects that without pseudoscientific needing to be reiterated at the beginning. Astrology is also considered satanic by certain churches, but we don't have 'Astrology is a satanic set of beliefs'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a opinion board for what science deems pseudoscientific or not. That it is considered a pseudoscience needs to be mentioned and it is. We don't need to introduce it as pseudoscientific any more than introduce it as satanic, though we might include that some churches consider it as such later in the article. As an example consider the homeopathy article which begins as follows "Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient." The first sentence introduces the concept of homeopathy, the latter sentences expand upon opinion on homeopathy. Similarly astrology's first sentence should just state what astrology is, namely a set of systems and beliefs pertaining to the movement of planets. That it is considered pseudoscientific is secondary to that. Similarly we might amend the article for every religion or belief system and prefix the sentences with 'pseudoscientific', "Christianity is a pseudoscientific belief system..." Xpaulk (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's misleading to compare astrology with homeopathy in this context. While homeopathy is of course a pseudoscience and we have good references for that, astrology is the single pseudoscience that always comes up as a typical pseudoscience in philosophical discussions of the science/pseudoscience demarcation problem. In the same way that psychoanalysis regularly comes up as a difficult case and a test case for specific attempts at drawing the dividing line.

While I agree that the character of astrology as a pseudoscience does not have to be in the first sentence, and while I think the article would read better without mentioning it so early, it does actually have factual content beyond just saying astrology is unfounded nonsense. There are many sets of "systems, traditions, and beliefs" that are not pseudoscientific at all. That this one is pseudoscientific is evident to every sensible reader from "which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies [...] and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs and other 'earthly' matters". While I personally subscribe to using the principle Show, don't tell in encyclopedia writing, a lot of people think that it's better to make things explicit, and in the context of a lead I generally agree. Hans Adler 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Xpaulk, there's a difference between fact and opinion. It's not possible to demonstrate that astrology is satanic, so that can only be presented as an opinion, if it's even notable enough to be included. However, it is demonstrably pseudoscientific. Religions, on the other hand, generally don't present themselves as being scientific, so they are not pseudoscience. (I would agree though that some of them do, and are.)

As for Hans' point that this need not be said up front, I think it's telling that the reason given for removing the word is the claim that it is not pseudoscientific, that it's biased to call it that, and that it's only considered as such by some faction. That's patently false: as Hans also notes, astrology is the textbook case of pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all astrologers and supporters of astrology claim that it's a "science". The first line says: "Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs". Moreover, there are some astrologers who claims that there is not enough research about the subject for validating it or not. The article states correctly that it's considered pseudocientific by the scientific community, and it's true and enough. The word "pseudocientific" in the first line is definitively biased. Fsolda (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be a chance to remove the word pseudoscience from the first sentence, but claiming that astrology is not actually one, or that it's a matter of POV, is just about the least strategy that is likely to succeed simply because it's so absurd. The following is from an article [1] 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)

Hans, that's excellent. BTW, those who "stick to them long after they have been falsified..." are called true believers. Falsifiability is an essential aspect in determining whether something is a pseudoscience or not. Without it "pseudoscience" is the wrong label. I have written more about this in my archives.

There is often a historical progression that ends with true believers: a superstition --> becomes a widely held belief --> evolving into a prescientific concept before the scientific era --> whose adherents make falsifiable claims in the scientific era --> which are then falsified/disproven and rejected by mainstream science --> but continue to thrive as a fringe belief still advocated by true believers as if it were fact, IOW they are still making falsifiable claims (like astrologers do) about it and believe it's totally true in a scientific sense, sometimes while advocating it as a "belief", rather than a "science". Any religion or metaphysical system that makes falsifiable claims is vulnerable to accusations of pushing a pseudoscience if they are pushing false beliefs as falsifiable fact. OTOH, if the ideas aren't falsifiable, then they don't qualify for the PSI label and are just religious beliefs. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of Astrology; I'm actually neutral about it, whether it's real or a superstition. But I have friends and relatives who are astrologers, and I know a little about it. First of all, it's right to state that its a belief and both astrologers and scientists agree about it. But not all the astrologers claim that astrology is a "science". Moreover, there are disputes even between the astrologers. For example: some consider Pluto a valid planet; some don't consider it a planet. Some considere aspects like Quintil and others as valid aspects; some not. Some consider that the astrology has influences about the life of the people in aspects like marriage, diseases and others, while other consider that the astrology rules only the spiritual influences in the persons. The Astrology is more closed to the religion than to the science. And - in my opinion - even the word "pseudoscience" is pejorative and authoritarian (not only for Astrology); the word "belief" is more neutral.Fsolda (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fsolda, we use pejoratives here all the time because RS use them. Wikipedia is uncensored and we are required to document things as they are by not censoring what sources say. We don't "neutralize" them. That would actually violate NPOV. As to your comments about some not claiming that astrology is a "science", see my comments right above yours. They are still making falsifiable claims, so they are engaged in a pseudoscientific endeavor, whether they realize it or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: The first paragraph of the article about "pseudoscience" states: "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.". And, since many astrologers don't present it as "scientific", then it cannot be a "pseudoscience". Fsolda (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article about "pseudoscience" states (I bold three factors)':

• "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.".

Using that definition, I will show how we actually have at least two different situations that both deserve to be labeled as "pseudoscience". They both involve "science", "falsifiability", and "evidence", but in different ways:

1. The first situation (which uses the sentence from the article) is based on ludicrous claims the belief is scientific. They have tied the noose around their own necks:

• "Pseudoscience is an unfalsifiable claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

• (Note that I have just moved the falsifiable ("testable") part to the beginning. I haven't changed the meaning. The sentence from the article already recognizes that falsifiability is an essential factor. That statement is limited strictly to unfalsifiable claims ("cannot be reliably tested"), as in where a religion makes explicit claims that their ludicrous and unfalsifiable idea is scientific. In this case the judgment is based purely upon false claims that an unfalsifiable idea can make claims to be scientific. Per Popper that's wrong: if it's not falsifiable, it's not science.)

2. The second situation is where untrue, but falsifiable, ideas are claimed to be scientific:

• "Pseudoscience is a falsifiable claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status, and has been falsified."

• (Note that here I have moved the falsifiable ("testable") part to the beginning and the "lacks supporting evidence" to the end in the form of "proven" lack of evidence.)

In both situations claims to be scientific exist and falsifiability (or explicit lack thereof) is also a factor. Is that clear enough? If so, can we use this to develop the definitions in the pseudoscience article? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, but it's also explained in the second paragraph: "Astrology is considered a pseudoscience or superstition by the scientific community, which sees a lack of statistically significant astrological predictions, while psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases.". It's true, but enough. The discussion is not about the falsiability of the astrology, but about whether it's presented as scientific or not. If we call as "pseudoscience" all the beliefs which cannot be tested and lack supporting evidence, then the religions are "pseudoscientific" as well.Fsolda (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if they also claim it's scientific or real, like $cientology does. If they just say it's what they believe and admit it's not scientifically proven, then it's just a belief and that's the end of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph might be okay if it weren't so weasely. It's not just considered pseudoscience by a certain community, it simply *is* pseudoscience. As long as the 2nd P is worded that way, we need a separate statement of what it is. Note that the objections to that statement contest it being pseudoscience, and they evidently read the 2nd P as not being strong enough to be bothersome. That's the rub.

There may be astrologers who do not present astrology as scientific, but that is how it's generally presented. Religions, a few like Xian Science and Scientology excepted, aren't. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement that "it simply *is* pseudoscience" is invalid, since - as I said before - not all of the astrologers and supporters of astrology regard it as a "science", and saying that it's generally presented as a "science" is something controversial. For validating this statement, we must make some survey with a great deal of astrologers with the question about their position about the astrology (if it's a science, or simply a belief, or something else), and if most of them state that it's "scientific", then this argument is valid, but, otherwise, it's not valid. It's different, for example, of some cases like the scientific creationism and homeopathy, which are undoubtly pseudosciences since all their supporters claim them to be scientific.Fsolda (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing astrology itself with its promoters. Just because some promoters don't claim it's scientific doesn't invalidate calling it pseudoscientific. Even they are engaging in a pseudoscientific endeavor, whether they realize it or not. Astrology itself is a pseudoscience because it is defined by its claim that the positions of the stars provide information about personality, human affairs and other "earthly" matters. That's just plain BS. There is no scientific evidence it's true, and when tested the claims don't prove to be true. If it was all defined as a board game with no implications for real life, it would be a different matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?

Reading all of the above, I think there's consensus (but correct me if I'm wrong) that:

• Astrology is not scientific
• Scientists consider Astrology to be non-scientific and/or pseudoscientific
• Scientific opinion needs to be mentioned in the article and in the lead
• This opinion should be attributed to the scientific community not stated as a plain fact
• The word pseudoscience does not need to be in the first sentence of the lead, but nor should it be buried.
• Not all astrologists claim to be scientific, so the pseudoscientic label doesn't always apply

If all of that sounds uncontroversial, then the recent edits I made to the lead should stand up. If not, well, we can keep going... Ocaasi (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, the issue has to do with whether it is always pseudoscientific, and in whose eyes. Astrology is always non-scientific, but whether it is pseudoscience or not depends specifically on whether Astrologists are claiming to be scientific. If an Astrologer admits it is only a belief system with no pretense to causal or logical predictive abilities, then the pseudoscience label is inapt. We can use the 'pseudoscience' label, but we should put it in its proper context. Ocaasi (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It *is* a plain fact that astrology is pseudoscientific. It's almost the definition of pseudoscience. It's also pseudoscientific whether or not all astrologers claim it's a science. (There may be Christians out there who do not claim that Christianity is a religion, but that doesn't mean it isn't one.)

If there is a significant believe among astrologers that astrology has no predictive value whatsoever (I'm still not clear on that below), then we should have a discussion on what that entails, but mainstream astrology would remain pseudoscientific. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a key point and it's a technical one about the definition of pseudoscience. I am not, at all, suggesting astrology has ever been scientific. I'm saying that the definition of pseudoscience requires that: a) practices which are not scientific b) are presented as if they were scientific. That's where the pseudo part comes in. If a practice is not scientific (e.g. religion) but is not presented as scientific (e.g. some religions) then the religion is not scientific. Please check out Pseudoscience for more on the definition. I agree that astrology fits as a classic example of pseudoscience, but that is different than saying it is--by definition--pseudoscience. Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

That article uses astrology as the first example of pseudoscience. There may be homeopathic practitioners who will say that homeopathy is simply the placebo effect, but the field is pseudoscientific even so. It sounds from what you're saying below that there are not astrologers who state that astrology has no predictive, explanatory, or causal value in human affairs, and since each of those would be pseudoscientific (they can be tested, and they fail the test), astrology as a whole is pseudoscientific. Saying a field is "considered" pseudoscientific by a certain community is the first step in denying that it's pseudoscience: that community is biased, ignorant, part of the conspiracy, etc. It's like saying that adherents of sect X are considered infidels by adherents of sect Y. We have overwhelming support for characterizing astrology as pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami is correct. If there is any subject that deserves to be labeled pseudoscientific in the definition, it's astrology. It's consistently listed as the classic example. Sometimes one just has to tell it like it is, and RS do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Astrology becomes scientific if it is based on the scientific method. Who are Kwamikagami and BullRangifer to say that all astrology does not use the scientific method or that all astro theses are not confirmed? Their insistence on inserting the word Pseudoscientific in the lead sentence is creating unnecessary discord about this article - and not consensus.Erekint (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of the scientific method being used by the astrological community? Perhaps some controlled tests, or some empiricism. I find it difficult to believe that astrology could be anything other than pseudoscience first and foremost; but if you have evidence to the contrary... bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why we need to state that it is pseudoscientific up front. That's the thing w pseudoscience: there's a constant attempt to evade the fact that it's been debunked; anything other than a clear statement that it's nonsense will be presented as proof that there's legitimate debate. — kwami (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A case of astrology as a science is M. Gaugelin's correlation of planetary placements and human characteristics. His finding that astrology has merit is debated. In view of even a single such case of scientific research into astrology can we honestly claim that ALL astrology is a pseudoscience? Hardly. Hectarion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Hectarion, have you ever edited here before under another username? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see the slippery slope issue, but defining the problem away is still not the best approach. It's not classy, not encyclopedic, smacks of Skepticism, and generates more heat than light. Better to just use stronger language: Astrology is unequivocally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. And leave it at that. It wouldn't matter if it was the snake-oil salesman himself, 'labels' should be secondary to definitions and we shouldn't mix the two for pragmatic purposes. Ocaasi (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Erekint and Hectarion, you're using the word "science" very carelessly and superficially, so much so I'd be tempted to think you are small children playing around with Wikipedia. While the scientific method does involve system, just having a scientifically systematic working method doesn't mean the subject is a science, at least not in the modern sense of the word. In its broader sense "scinece" just means "knowledge" and is still used in that sense in India where pseudosciences like "Vedic science" misuse the word. They're just using it in the "systematic study and analysis of knowledge" sense, just like theology, but many of their adherents misuse it to claim scientific credibility, using court orders to keep it as "science" classes in universities, which is absurd and nonsensical in this day and age. To be truly scientific, it must also exclude bias, account for confounders, must be formulated in a falsifiable manner, be controlled, use blinding, be independently verified and duplicated, and its claims and conclusions must be proven to be true. The results will be true for everyone, everywhere, independent of culture, and not just for believers. The evidence must follow the method. Just having the method isn't enough. It's not fair to ignore the evidence aspect. No, using scientific vigor and system doesn't justify calling astrology a "science". Even nonsense can be approached with scientific vigor. Even syllogisms are logical and systematic, but can ignore some glaring logical fallacies. They can be very logical and funny, yet prove nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To make my position clear... there is no consensus that "the word pseudoscience does not need to be in the first sentence of the lead,..." I believe it definitely should be there as a defining aspect. There are other pseudoscience articles where we, for various reasons, aren't as bold and we use the word in the lead, but not in the first sentence, but that shouldn't be necessary here. If there is one subject that is consistently mentioned as THE classic pseudoscience, it's astrology. As long as there is a single astrology group or association which makes falsifiable claims that the position of the stars has any influence on individual personality traits or the fate of our lives, it will be legitimate to classify it as the ultimate pseudoscience. When the last association publically proclaims that its former claims were not true and have no scientific basis, and that it's now just a parlor game, then we can remove the word from the first sentence. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My statement ("defining aspect") requires some explanation. We are supposed to include a definition in the lead. Our definition (just like other parts of the lead), per WP:LEAD, is based on the contents of the article, and isn't limited to an official definition from some dictionary or society. IOW, we create our own definitions here. Definitions found elsewhere are created based on their limited or one-sided content, but Wikipedia's NPOV policy means our articles are all-inclusive, covering the subject from all significant angles, which means our definitions should be better than any other definitions. We look at our content, see what the RS say, and then build our definition based on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a stickler for OR when it comes to situations like this, as I see what you're describing as one of our unique strengths. My concern, however, is that by incorporating the label into the definition we are crossing a subtle NPOV boundary. We can even put the word pseudoscience in the first sentence but not as the primary adjective before 'system'. It's a matter or proportion in the definition and putting pseudoscience as the first word is out of proportion to me. Why not call it a 'mystical' or 'pseudoreligous' or 'magical' or 'divining' system. Picking a word doesn't just involve accuracy but primacy. I'm not sure pseudoscientific is the first word that should describe anything. Maybe the second. Probably the sixth. Ocaasi (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of adj we could use. The question is which would be most informative to our readers. I don't think 'pseudoreligious' or 'magical' would be accurate, but sure, 'mystical' and 'divinational' sound fine to me. (Unless 'divinational' is not generally appropriate either: see next thread.) The problem with mystical, however, is that it doesn't actually say very much, whereas pseudoscientific does. (Note that no-one has been pushing for us to add any of your proposed adj.) This is because astrology circles spend a lot of time and effort denying that they're pseudoscientific. They don't deny that they're mystical or divinational; in fact, they're proud of those aspects. When a topic is constantly barraged by disinformation, IMO it is our responsibility as a reference work to dispel that nonsense immediately. Thus 'pseudoscientific' should IMO take priority. A wording that also notes that it is mystical or divinational might be nice. Can you think of anything? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still angling for a separation. Perhaps: "Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs based around the notion that relative positions of celestial bodies (the sun, moon, and planets) can provide insights into personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters. As a craft it is a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, divination, and prophecy. For its claims to be able to meaningfully predict events by reading celestial movements, it is widely considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience." That'd be my approach, but I like words.

I do specifically disagree with you in terms of our role here. Wikipedia is not designed to right great wrongs or to counter gross misinformation. That may be the end result of good encyclopedic writing, but it should not be an explicit purpose. I think that goal has lead to a lot of conflict. We just represent all views on subjects neutrally. Putting pseudoscience in the definition itself just isn't neutral. The view is accurate, verifiable, and significant, but I think we're pushing NPOV and WEIGHT around by using it as the primary adjective and inserting it as if it's an inherent quality of a very old, varied, and culturally rich practice. So it's full of sh*t. That doesn't mean we describe it as "a full of sh*t system". There should be a separation between these issues for reasons that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the claim. Ocaasi (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I like your rewording. It's clear and flows well. The only exception I have to it is the weasel wording "it is widely considered to be". (Slippery slope, as you noted earlier.) IMO 'fate' might should be in there somewhere as well. Maybe,

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies (the sun, moon, and planets) can explain or predict fate, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters. As a craft it is a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, divination, and prophecy. It is the a classic example of pseudoscience, as it ... ...

kwami (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we're just about there. How about: "a classic example" rather than "the classic example", which I think requires actual RS to specifically say that of all the pseudosciences, astrology wins the prize. Ocaasi (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It's funny how a single little word can make such a difference! -- Brangifer (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. What about at the end, the reason it's a classic example? — kwami (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, but I don't want to put it in the article with an end that causes problems. How about finishing it, It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes testable claims which have been consistently ... what, falsified? disproven?

Oh, it's already there. I'll use 'disproved' until/unless s.o. thinks of s.t. better. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at astromancy. That article was written from the POV that what religion and science criticizes about astrology is really "astromancy", which contemporary astrology now rejects; however, the criticism bit is clearly false (at least for science, but I would suspect for religion as well), and AFAIK more generally 'astromancy' just means the modern, non-astronomical aspects of astrology. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by Xpaulk (26 Jan 2011) who argues that the introduction to the subject should concentrate on defining the subject in its own terms; and with Fsolda (26 Jan 2011) who calls our attention to the opening definition by David Pingree, which is also offered by the ‘The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion’: “Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs …”

Since Wikipedia’s primary definition of the subject makes no essential comparison to modern science, it is not relevant to state what the modern scientific opinion of astrology may or not be, not at this preliminary stage at least. Wikipedia’s policy of maintaining a neutral point of view does not require that a subject which is believed in should be shown as unworthy of belief. The Wikipedia page on Christianity, for example, does not begin with a statement on what atheists make of Christianity – it simply explains the Christian doctrine for what it is, so that those who are interested can be informed on the main points of significance, before reading on to understand the subject in greater depth.

The use the term pseudoscience in relation to astrology at such a preliminary stage is highly controversial and contentious. Currently the opening paragraph on astrology states “It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved”. There is much to be argued here, and since it is given as a stated opinion then the point deserves to be raised and discussed appropriately within the section that allows exploration of that issue. The opening paragraph is certainly not the appropriate place – no credible encyclopedia would create an entry that began with a dismissal of a subject before it has even been outlined and explained.

Therefore I suggest that the opening reference to pseudoscience is removed from this position where it rightly attracts strong criticism, whilst allowing the point to be made in the science section where it holds relevancy. If not there should be some qualification to the current remark, to explain why the modern western scientific view of astrology is considered so important that it defines the subject, even though it contradicts other cultural views and the historical treatment of the subject. But do we really want that in an introductory outline of the subject? The simplest and most sensible solution is to remove this controversial remark from the opening paragraph, which calls for a broad but reliable definition of what astrology essentially is, and leaves points of controversy and divided opinion for later exploration.Costmary (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Many, if not most, astrologers claim that astrology has the power of prediction. This has been shown to be false. It is, therefore, a false science. Per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, "the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". The defining line of the lede says astrology "can explain or predict fate, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters." This is demonstrably false, so we need to say so. We're not here to appease unscientific POVs by being polite about their being unscientific. Christianity, on the other hand, makes no predictable claim. We also characterize it as a religion, which pretty clearly sums it up: Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. We don't even say it's based on the teachings of Jesus, we specify "as presented in the canonical gospels". We don't just say "it's a set of systems" or something equally uninformative. Astrology is not a religion; I suppose we could call it a superstition, but it isn't really that either, and in any case I suspect that astrologers would find that the more offensive term. "Pseudoscience" is what we're left with: it's succinct, it's accurate, and it tells the reader what they're dealing with. That's our job. — kwami (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What you say is “demonstrably false” is not demonstrably false, and the whole discussion raises argument that is misplaced in the opening paragraph. Whatever your views on this, the use of that comment at that place in the page does not allow the article to open with a non-controversial, informative account of what astrology essentially is. You have set out a definition of astrology that only a sceptic would agree entirely with – as I said before, no credible encyclopedia would create an entry that began with a dismissal of a subject before the subject has even been outlined and explained. That’s why this is not about whether the page includes reference to a stated view that it is pseudoscientific, but that it is inappropriate to lead-in with sceptical views on a subject before the subject has been properly introduced. Costmary (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're an encyclopedia, not an apologia to whatever you happen to believe in. We note that pseudoscience is pseudoscience; that is part of "what astrology essentially is". This is no different really than saying that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad was the last prophet: we are careful to frame such claims as being the claims of a particular religion, and do not simply state them as fact. Closer to home, the first paragraph at homeopathy states, "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo." “Remedies” is even placed in scare quotes. Homeopaths may take offense at this, but that's not our concern. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

For balance, perhaps we can include the entire body of evidence that Astrology is accurate in the opening. It will fit. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Costmary is correct. Astrology is a very interesting example of how the goalposts have been moved to try to eliminate it from science. Nothing yet has worked to support this belief. Let's take the criteria of Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend.

Popper's criteria (astrology makes no testable claims): There has been no scientific study yet that has falsified astrology, and the non-falsifiability claim is less than an assumption; it is an unsupported opinion or belief. The gold standard used to be the controversial 1985 Carlson study, which has many flaws, including: no disclosure of similar scientific studies, unfairly skewed design, disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation, irrelevant groupings of data, rejection of unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. According to a critical assessment in 2009 by Professor Suitbert Ertel, when Carlson's stated measurement criteria are applied and the data is evaluated according to normal social science, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provide evidence that is consistent with astrology (p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES = .10). This "extraordinary" reversal of results gives testimony to the power of data ranking and rating methods, which have been successfully used in other astrological experiments with positive results for astrology, eg. Clark, Marbell, Hill/Thompson, and Ertel (Mars eminence effect). Studies that do not use these methods tend to fail, unless very large datasets are used e.g. Gauquelin (Mars effect). Ertel's criticism is forcing scientists to rethink their position on astrology. How do you explain these positive results, or the others? http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/support-for-astrology-from-the-carlson-double-blind-experiment/

Kuhn's criteria (astrology does not give rise puzzles and puzzle solving): Astrologers were confronted with the new planets of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, as well as other newly discovered bodies. This presented puzzles, which using traditional methods of evaluation (e.g. modeling and case studies), astrologers were able to solve. Uranus turns out to have astrological properties that many, if not most, astrologers would recognize as more closely associated with the character of Prometheus than Uranus. This new awareness has led to proposals by Richard Tarnus and others to actually change the name of the planet for the purposes of astrology. Pluto presents a problem to solve for astronomers (is it not a planet?) and for astrologers (is it not more like Dionysus?). It seems astronomers are not as good at naming planets as they used to be when they were also astrologers.

Feyerabend's/Thagard's criteria (astrology does not proliferate alternative theories to increase empirical content): Psychology presents astrology with empirical content and many astrological theories have proliferated to try to incorporate modern psychology into the framework of astrology. By using its traditional methods of observation and lively discourse, astrology has developed far richer theories of personality and development than psychology. Astrology is much different than it was at the time of Ptolemy and there are many new theories. No one who reads the literature can think otherwise.

In short, there is no criteria that would exclude astrology as a science, so Coastmary is perfectly right to ask that the term "pseudoscience" be fairly regarded for what it is, an opinion, which is neither supported by any empirical evidence or the other critical criteria, which have been unsuccessful efforts to exclude it from science. This problem should be acknowledged in the article. It may be introduced as a problem in the introductory paragraph, or as Costmary suggests, later in the Science section of the article. The first consensus point above needs to be amended. Astrology is not scientific, but scientific studies have been made of astrology, and astrologers have participated in a number of these studies. Apagogeron (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, Apagogeron has shown how contentious this point is. Astrologers are, in my experience, not pushing to have a scientific face, but are willing to be open and transparent about the data-evidence of astrology, and keen to have astrological experiments, and their results, looked at critically. But this is a matter that deserves informative coverage in the appropriate place, so that the necessary discussion and references are provided in the section where astrology’s relationship with science is explored. It is because this is an encyclopaedic reference which strives towards providing reliable and substantiated points, that the argument about whether astrology is pseudoscientific or not, should not be stated as a matter of fact without proper explanation. And as I have said before, the introduction to a subject should steer from controversy and seek to provide the most agreed upon outline of what astrology is, what it aims to do and how it is supposed to work. We should explain the astrological argument first, and then consider the criticisms against it – that is just standard academic procedure; it’s not about being apologetic.

This section of the talk page holds a confused discussion as to whether it’s appropriate to label astrology as a pseudoscience at all, alongside whether this should be done at the beginning of the entry. Having looked through this there is a clearer consensus of opinion that the argument does not need to be made as an introduction to the subject, since the opportunity to cover the different views and stated opinions can be made in the full treatment which is given to the scientific angle later in the page. Because there is a consensus on that I will make the edit, and ask that further discussion on this particular point not concern itself with whether astrology is a pseudoscience or not; only whether such a contentious issue needs to be raised so early, and if so why? (Given that a more substantiated discussion on this can be offered in the section that relates to it). Costmary (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is needed here is just a clear explanation of the experiments of note and their findings, drawn into a summary conclusion based on the best evidence. The layman should refer to this page and get informed rather than bogged down in debate. Giving the attention to the pseudoscience label right at the start makes this page look biased and untrustworthy instead of evenly informative. So I agree its best to cut the early comment and make the later explanation clearer in its summary.Gary PH (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but the consensus is that pseudoscience needs to be labeled as pseudoscience; we do not give it legitimacy by burying a discussion over how study A found X but study B found Y, as if there were any real debate over it in the scientific community. Of course, no matter how many times that the consensus is established, True Believers will complain that the articles are biased against their Truth, and most of us are simply tired of debating them. The lack of debate, however, does not mean that their POV is now consensus.

If you wish to change the consensus, you can't just do it here, but need to engage the wider WP community who established that consensus by bringing it up at WP:Pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the matter should be raised and discussed more fully, probably best to use the link you suggest. In the meantime the discussion here is that it's not a relevent comment for the introductory paragraph, since it makes no recognition of the pertinent fact that the practice of astrology is not considered to be a science but an art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views" WP:FRINGE/PS. Having the mention of pseudoscience in the lead section would be such an obfuscation that this guideline warns about. The claim by True Disbelievers is highly disputable not because it is biased but because there exists no actual support for it that is based on empirical studies. It is in fact a groundless opinion. If anything, the scientific evidence goes the other way. Some falsifiable studies, known and discussed among True Disbelievers, for which there is public documentation, have been repeatedly replicated and have remained unfalsified for over 20 years. This fact can be included in the Science sub-section. It would not be equating astrology to science, but rather scientific evidence to a common scientific belief. Apagogeron (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ironically not the stars

This wording was removed, and I agree it lacked context. However, I do think it's worth saying something along these lines. The stereotypical perception of astrology is that it "reads the stars", your future is "in the stars", etc., so it's quite ironic that, AFAIK, the stars have nothing to do with it. IMO this is a key concept that really should be in the lede.

For example, Psychology: a modular approach to mind and behavior says, under "Problems in the Stars", that Astrology is probably the most popular pseudopsychology. Astrology holds that the positions of the stars and planets at the ... There are astrology books like Read the Answer in the Stars and Love Is in the Stars, suggesting that even some astrologers don't get this. Life magazine wrote, Miss Kingsley, 49, married twice, reads in the stars that she will marry again. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Think we can just put something in the lead like: Although astrology often refers to "reading the stars" there are actually no other stars involved aside from the Sun. One sentence, just about anywhere in the first half of the lead would work for me. Also, is that true universally (no pun intended)? I mean, do none of the astological branches look at other stars? Ocaasi (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. All I know of astrology is planets in the signs, and the signs do not correspond to the stars. I don't know about Hindu or Chinese astrology. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this and this is my first attempt at using the talk feature, so I hope I am doing this correctly.

I recently tried to change some of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this article - being well informed on its history, theory and practice I felt these would be appreciated in this endeavour to collectively create a reliable page on this topic. But I have to say that I am disappointed in the way that nearly all my attempts to amend inaccuracies have been swiftly undone by members who don’t seem to understand the practical details of the subject.

Like here, there seems to be an attempt to point out an ‘irony’ in the suggestion that astrology claims to ‘read the stars’ - which is stated to underline an assertion that astrology doesn’t even use or is not based on the stars. This element of irony needs to be removed because it has no factual basis. Although Western astrology defines celestial movement through ecliptic longitude, and makes positional references and draws meaning from the tropical signs of the zodiac, it is common practice for western astrologers to incorporate meanings drawn from planetary and angular relationships to stars. This is an irrefutable fact which is relevant to the history, tradition and conventional practice of western astrology. See for example, this website which is a popular source of information for Western astrology students and practitioners and is entirely dedicated to the use and meaning of the stars: http://www.constellationsofwords.com; or see these web-pages which demonstrate recent natal chart discussions that show how the so called ‘fixed-stars’ are incorporated in modern western astrology practice: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shelley.html & http://www.skyscript.co.uk/bb1.html

I hope it is acceptable therefore that I will edit the comment again to replace the misleading and incorrect comment “The relevant bodies are the sun, moon, and planets, and although astrology is commonly characterized as "reading the stars, Western astrology is not actually based on the stars", (which adds no reliable and substantial content to the introduction to the subject) to read as follows;

“In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the Sun, Moon and planets, although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest”.

This is more appropriate, informative and accurate, so may I ask that this is not simply ‘undone’ by someone who is wanting to underline the irony of a situation that does not actually exist? Costmary (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point, but let's establish that here first.

The irony is not within astrology itself, but stems from the inaccurate translation of aster or stella as "star". The Greek & Latin terms meant a light in the sky. Astrology certainly refers to these. The irony is that while "star" is the most generic translation of aster, what astrology (primarily?) uses are not what we now call "stars" (what the Greeks and Romans called "fixed stars"). It's the same kind of irony as marketing the Nova car in Latin America: nothing wrong with the name, just an ironic interpretation in the local language.

Your first ref appears to be s.t. the guy just made up. Perhaps he was put out because astrology does not refer to the "stars", and set out to fix that?

It's hard to wade through the thick sludge of SkyScript, so maybe I'm just missing s.t. But he says things like "What does it mean? I truly have no idea except to think that there are star voices out there that we can no longer hear." And then, "As a result, the astrology we have developed is what can more aptly be called planetology or solarsystemology, as it is really about the relationship we have with the planets and the seasons on earth and very little to do with the dome of the starry sky. [...] Therefore, the prefix of astro which means "of the stars" should not really be used." So, he's actually supporting our point. Is he just making the rest up?

He is, of course, mistranslating astro-; we don't insist on calling astronomers 'planetologists' just because they study the planets; planetology is a subfield of astronomy, not a separate science; if you're specifically studying the stars, it's 'stellar astronomy'.

Again, you could well be correct, but I'd like to see a reliable source on this. If there's a minor strain of stellar astrology, we might reword the intro to reflect that ('stars play a minor role', 'most don't use the stars', etc). — kwami (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami my comment was entirely reliable and accurate, and so I don’t understand why you have rushed to replace a factually correct and appropriately representative neutral comment with one that intentionally causes bias and generates confusion and misunderstanding on the topic of this page.

You say: “The irony is that while "star" is the most generic translation of aster, what astrology (primarily?) uses are not what we now call "stars" (what the Greeks and Romans called "fixed stars").”

But you are mistaken, and the third reference I gave clearly demonstrated this, even in its title “Shelley: A Tragic Romantic – A study in Fixed Stars” which then went on to demonstrate the very common practice of incorporating fixed star meanings within modern natal astrology. Even if you find it too much trouble to read the evidence in the link I gave you, the meaning of the title is clear enough.

"Your first ref appears to be s.t. the guy just made up."

This is not so, and if you take the trouble to read the content (put together by a woman actually) you will see that it represents a life work of astrological interest, which creates an encyclopedic resource of astrological information which is used by modern astrological practitioners. The information is clearly appropriately cited to its relevant historical sources.

The incorporation of star knowledge does not move the field from astrology to ‘stellar astronomy’ – as I said, we are talking about knowledge and information that is relevant to the history, tradition and conventional practice of astrology because it is incorporated within the use of astrology as my (now edited remark) clearly demonstrated.

I find it incredible that more references have to be provided to support the use of a basic astrological feature, and I’m not sure how many you need; but here are the details of 10 ‘classic’ astrological texts which detail this subject. The historical texts are still in print because they remain required reading for astrological students – which testifies how important and long established the incorporation of star meanings within western tropical astrology actually is. Costmary (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Allen, R.H., ‘Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning’, (Dover, 1889: in continued publication)

Brady, B. ‘Brady's Book of Fixed Stars’, Weiser, 1999.

Ebertin – Hoffman, ‘Fixed Stars and their Interpretation’, 1971 (1976 edition, translated by Irmgard Banks), p.11.

Firmicus, ‘Matheseos Libri VIII’, 4th century, VIII.VII; (Ascella reprint 2003).

Lilly,W. ‘Christian Astrology’, 1647 – third volume.

Manilius ‘Astronomica ’, (Loeb Classics, 1st century: G.P. Goold translation 1977).

Morse, E. ‘The Living Stars’, Amethyst Books, London, 1988.

Ptolemy, ‘Tetrabiblos’, (Loeb Classics, 2st century: F.E. Robbins translation 1940)

Ramesey. W. ‘Astrologia Restaurata; or Astrology Restored’, R. White, London, 1653

Robson, V. ‘Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology’ 1923; Ascella Reprint, 1994.

My comment was correct in its details and appropriately representative, by stating that “In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the Sun, Moon and planets, although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest”.

This is because the star meanings are used as descriptive modifiers to planetary alignments and chart angles – my comment informs about the correct placement of fixed star knowledge in astrology, whereas the comment you want to maintain denies the reality of astrological history and current practice, and presents a distorted (and apparently illogical) stance. Since I have now established the point I was making – offering legitimate sources of verification and online examples of the practical application of this technique will you now restore my comment which was neutral, representative of historical and current practice, and factually correct? Thank you. Costmary (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what others who know more about the subject than I do have to say.

The only one of those books I'm familiar with is Allen, and that isn't even about astrology!

Many of your sources are older than the distinction between astronomy and astrology. We could perhaps say "in modern Western astrology".

Brady appears to be saying (from what I've skimmed) that the stars were abandoned by astrology, and she's attempting to reconstruct their use. So, again, she seems to support our claim; perhaps we would need to modify it to one of the wordings I suggested above ('stars play a minor role', 'most astrologers don't make use the stars', etc.).

And of course, from your earlier ref, "the astrology we have developed [has] very little to do with the dome of the starry sky. [...] Therefore, the prefix of astro which means "of the stars" should not really be used." That's pretty clear.

One problem I have with your wording is that it's rather opaque. IMO it's best to keep the lede as clear & straightforward as possible. — kwami (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But I think that you can see clearly enough what others have to say by following the ample links and sources I have already given - all of the other works I listed are astrological texts and they are all well known (and Allen's is used as a reference book by astrologers). The fact that you are unfamiliar with all of them demonstrates that you are not very familiar with the practice of western astrology, so perhaps you are not the best person to be trying to define it. I should also have added 'Fixed Stars and Judicial Astrology' by George Noonan (AFA) as a recent wll known work of reference, and Diana Rosenberg is shortly to publish her own volumous exploration of fixed star meainings in what is expected to be a top-selling astrology title. Just run a google search for these titles to verify their existence. It is impossible to deny the astrological practice of incorporating fixed star meanings, and since your argument was based on your confusion on what 'aster' meant, why hesitate to have the misleading information corrected? My point is self-evident and not a controversial one - is there some reason why I have to wait for your personal approval before making a correction to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've followed several of your sources, and they either do not support your opinion, or even support the current wording. Who cares if Allen is used by astrologers? He's not a reference that astrologers use fixed stars. Two of your other sources say that astrologers have abandoned the stars. There's no rush to get this done, so let's get some other feedback.

Your latest ref, Noonan, says basically the same thing: modern astrology has abandoned the stars, and he's resurrecting classical usage. Your point is hardly "self-evident" when your own sources support or do not refute our claim that (modern) W. astr. is 'not based on the stars'. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

“Who cares if Allen is used by astrologers? He's not a reference that astrologers use fixed stars.”

Please see this page, and specifically the comment qualified by footnote 6:

Starlore of the Constellations: Cetus the Whale - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/cetus.html

This is astrological information, presented on an astrological website, making use of that book as a reference for the astrological use of the fixed stars.

“Two of your other sources say that astrologers have abandoned the stars”

This is your suggestion based on your ‘quick skim’ of the texts, by which you have taken Bernadette Brady’s comments out of context. Her motivation is to increase awareness of star knowledge and so she may argue that astrologers need to increase their attention of this matter, but she would not argue that the practice is not current. Even if she did, why have you ignored all the other sources I gave?

Also, can you please cite your sources when making your arguments as I have done, because you are certainly taking such comments out of context if you are trying to maintain that astrologer’s do not incorporate knowledge of the stars, and that this has not always been important historically. Why then is Vivian Robson’s book on Fixed Stars and Constellations one of the most popular and enduring of 20th century astrological works? Please take a look at that and see how directly relevant the work is.

Your point is hardly "self-evident" when your own sources support or do not refute our claim that (modern) W. astr. is 'not based on the stars'. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim ‘is not based on the stars’ is a recent amendment after I corrected the earlier assertion that astrology does not make any use of the stars. As the history of this discussion shows, that incorrect fact was used to create a sense of irony, hence the reason to use the phrase ‘reading the stars’. This allows the creation of a nonsense remark that appears to be designed to make nonsense out of astrology (ie., although astrology is supposed to ‘read the stars’ it doesn’t actually use them …). It’s because the motivation behind the comment is biased and unsubstantiated that the whole remark calls for revision, and this is what I have done. My comment causes offense to no one and makes it clear that modern western astrology is not intrinsically dependent on the use of star meanings, but incorporates their use. Western astrologers use knowledge of the stars to varying degrees, some making light use of them; others being heavily dependent upon their use. My comment also demonstrates the incorporation of other elements that are important to varying degrees to western astrologers. As an astrologer I make no use of planetoids or asteroids myself, and don’t advocate that technique, but it is a fact that many Western astrologers do, and so if this Wikipedia page is to have any credibility as a neutral source of information then the relevant information should be given, free of bias, which is what my comment achieves.

“In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the Sun, Moon and planets, although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest”.

As I am new to this I would very much appreciate an answer to my earlier question about whether I need your personal approval to make the change I have suggested. Am I breaking a Wikipedia policy by seeking to correct information without your approval, ie - is there an hierarchy of editorship in place here which means that I need your approval? It does seem strange to me that it is necessary to make this much argument in order to substantiate an obviously reliable comment that explains the matter clearly, to replace a rather silly and misleading remark, which creates confusion and only serves to highlight some imagined point of irony.Costmary (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not need my permission, but given that this was discussed before adding it to the article, it would be politic of you to wait for the other editors to respond.

Robson certainly does support what you're saying. I don't know how influential she is; maybe the others will have a better idea.

As for the passage being intended to make astrology look ridiculous, that's your reading of it. I find it ironic, but that's not the same as ridiculous. The SkyScript site you keep referring to makes the same point, even saying that "astrology" is a misnomer because of it. (I find it doubly ironic that an astrologer doesn't know what astro- means.) — kwami (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. In that case then I think I have done the appropriate thing and have demonstrated the good sense and factual reliability of my revision through the discussion I have placed here – one reliable reference should really have been enough for what is an obvious improvement which causes no offence. For the record, Vivian Robson was a man, and his work has been very influential, as has Ebertin and Hoffman’s ‘Fixed Stars and their Interpretation’ (Reinhold Ebertin having made a very detailed survey of planet-star transits using data drawn from several centuries). In addition, the list of books I gave above includes the two most important, influential and widely circulated texts of western astrology, so your statement that you are unfamiliar with all the works except the one that is not specifically astrological causes concern. Anyone with more than a superficial interest in western astrology will certainly be familiar with the works of Ptolemy and Lilly and know of their importance and significance, if not possess a copy of their famous astrological texts, since demand keeps them in print. I therefore think it is important that this encyclopedic reference page is not prevented from improvement by a desire to cling to pre-established content which, unfortunately, contains many errors which are in need of critical assessment.

With regard to your comment on Skyscript, again you do not cite a specific reference. What is clear is that the Skyscript site demonstrates ample evidence of the use of the ‘fixed stars’ in astrology, as the list of pages categorized as being related to this topic proves: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html#sc. For another reference on another leading mainstream astrology website see: http://www.astrologycom.com/fixedstars.html. I could give many others but the point has been made, and these references together have fully supported my argument. My proposed change is relatively minor but accurate and improves the quality of the page. I would therefore hope that anyone wishing to effortlessly and thoughtlessly revert my edit (as has happened with so many of my previous edits) should take the trouble to discuss first and cite strong references to support their argument, as I have done myself. Costmary (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you needed a link, since you provided it. But here:[2]

Brady contradicts you. She says that she wants the stars to have a secondary role in astrology, but that currently they don't:

As a result, the astrology we have developed is what can more aptly be called planetology or solarsystemology, as it is really about the relationship we have with the planets and the seasons on earth and very little to do with the dome of the starry sky. Indeed the only star that is represented in the map is Helios our sun and the planets in a horoscope are measured in one dimension in relationship to Helios' journey. Therefore, the prefix of astro which means "of the stars" should not really be used. However, do not misunderstand my sentiments here. I regard planetology as a very powerful technique; nothing is more revealing than a horoscope with its circle of the ecliptic and the sun and planets located on this band, falling into houses, zodiac signs and geometrical relationships with each other.

...

As we can see from the great bear, planets are not the only celestial lights to walk upon our earth and although the Greek approach effectively ignores the star's own language and position in the sky and thus removes this voice from astrology's sacred maps, the myths and deep symbolic meanings with which humanity has empowered the stars - here I mean the stars, not the planets - are still walking amongst us. The stellar myths and stories are still involved in humanity's relationship with the sky and the earth. In Sean Kane's (1998) opinion old gods do not die but have found refuge in the trees and rivers. In the case of astrology where our trees and rivers are the stars and the constellations, they have not died; it is just that we have stopped listening to their stories.

...

Maybe I am star-dreaming but with a pole star back in the centre of the visible world it may just be possible that astrologers will start once again to reach out for the stars. We need to remember that astrologers are the traditional guardians of this sacred relationship between the earth and the sky and by stretching our awareness beyond ecliptocentric thinking and including the whole dome of the sky, we can open our minds once more to the other voices of the sky, the old myths and stories placed by our ancestors onto our "trees and rivers".

"it may just be possible that astrologers will start once again to reach out for the stars"?? I think it's fair to say that the stars play, at best, a minor role. And that is ironic, if you think that astrology is "reading the stars", which most people seem to. — kwami (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As for you latest bout in this edit war, you say that we've had a "full discussion". We haven't. You've discussed, I've pointed out that several of your references disagree with you, and you've basically ignored it. We haven't had any outside opinion.

Also, with the general principal that when explaining s.t. shorter is better, I wonder if you can justify you addition of meteorology, philosophy, geometry (apart from what's already present in astronomy), and psychology. I've never heard of astrology factoring in the weather; I thought it was supposed to be beyond such things. And psychology? Astrologers may attempt to explain the mind with the stars, but I'm not aware of them investigating the mind itself, at least not as a defining element of the art. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. You might want to read WP:BOLD. I should have mentioned that earlier. — kwami (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Brady does not contradict my point – if the argument you are making, that the use of the stars has no place in western astrology, was her point, then why would her book on the meaning of the stars in astrology be one of the top selling astrology books? And I have not provided you with merely one author’s opinion, I have provided you with many substantial references. This is not an ‘edit war’, but a concern that the appropriate information is given. What is it about my comment ““In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the Sun, Moon and planets, although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest” that you feel is incorrect and unworthy of publication?

It is bizarre that you are so uninformed on western astrology that you are unfamiliar with its most well known texts and haven’t even heard of it being put to meteorological use, or incorporating elements of philosophy and psychology (the whole subject is an exploration of mind); and yet you still remove my comments, as if you have an all-embracing and defining knowledge of the subject. This page is a collaborate effort and not your personal territory. I have justified why the earlier comment was in need of improvement, so please have the courtesy of explaining the reason why you have a problem with my correction of a misleading statement (which provides an informative and non-offensive solution) before simply removing it as if I have not already taken pains to discuss and explain the salient points.Costmary (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, and appropriately informed of the practice of astrology, I fully support Costmary's definition, 'In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the Sun, Moon and planets, although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest' as a valid, accurate and non-contraversial definition of western astrology. Wendy Stacey, BA, MA.Wendy Stacey (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And what of the other unreferenced points, such as meteorology and psychology?

The fact that Costmary's first reference supports the irony of the modern understanding of the name means it's still valid. I can even use it as a ref. How is any of the deleted wording incorrect? — kwami (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with your perspective here, but I don't feel your most recent reversion of the lede's definition was an improvement. In particular, I think that the prior "allows reference" wording was more succinct and appropriate than "actually play a minor role", which smacks to me of a non-NPOV. Note that neutrality of presentation is still a crucial consideration, whether or not the views presented are pseudoscientific. /ninly_(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to get across is the irony of the common understanding of what astrology is. It has nothing to do with it being pseudoscientific: If the common understanding of zoologist was someone who works in a zoo, we'd address that misunderstanding in the lead as well. Here we have a notable astrologer saying that the word "astrology" is a misnomer because it is divorced from the stars! I find it ironic that an astrologer would take that view, but it does reflect the common understanding of the word: that astrology has to do with the stars, when in fact here we have several sources saying that astrology should have s.t. to do w the stars, or we need to recapture that aspect of astrology which has been lost. The wording "allows reference" (which BTW is still there) completely misses the point. But we also point out why the name is not a misnomer, because astro does not mean 'star', but includes the planets as well. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem too is that Costmary isn't using RS's for her(?) claim: she's using sources promoting fixed-star astrology to gauge the importance of fixed-star astrology. It turns out that several of these sources admit that it is practically non-existent, but they refer to the Classical period when, they say, the stars were more central. However, if we look into RS's of Greek astrology, we find that the stars played a minor role even then: "Fixed stars play in general a minor role in astrological works." O. Neugebauer & H. B. Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes, 1987 [1959] p 170.[3] You have to go back to Babylonian astrology before the stars and constellations start taking on a greater role, and even then the texts are difficult to interpret, with some scholars going so far as to say that the fixed stars were "a dead chapter" in Babylonian astrology. That may be an exaggeration.[4] But regardless, astrologers generally only go back to the Greeks, since those are the oldest texts we can read with any real confidence. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami says: "Part of the problem too is that Costmary isn't using RS's for her(?) claim: she's using sources promoting fixed-star astrology to gauge the importance of fixed-star astrology."  ??? - I have already pointed out that two of the sources I gave are the most influential and well read texts of western astrology ever written - the methods of which are still studied and applied by astrologers even today. These texts were not 'promoting' fixed star astrology; just including it as astrologers do. And I have given a good selection of well known easily accesible modern texts. Kwami, you can't just keep saying that I haven't given reliable sources when I clearly have, or that I haven't answered your queries when I have taken considerable time to do that - just read back through what has been written above. The system "allows reference to the use of the fixed stars" as this page now accurately states.

(And astrologers do go back beyond the Greeks to recover whatever information is available about astrology's ancient foundation. Thanks to the work of scholars such as Pingree, Rochberg, Brown, Koch-Westenholz, Jones, etc; there are many things that can be said with confidence now about ancient astrology; so I hope this page doesn't have to be restricted in every sense to what you Kwami are personally aware of, or feel you understand). Costmary (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Reliable sources so that we're on the same wavelength.

I don't have access to all of your sources. But several that I do say that the stars have been lost from astrology, and that they're trying to bring them back. That isn't a detached description of the state of astrology, but someone pushing a particular POV. They are therefore not a reliable indicator of how widespread or well accepted that POV is within astrology. The best I could do with that is say that several popular authors are pushing for a return to the stars in astrology. What would be nice would be to have a non-astrological source that describes the dominant beliefs of modern western astrology. That's what I provided above for Greek astrology. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No one says that "the stars have been lost from astrology" (except you, when you made some very uninformed and categorical statements to this effect, which you now don't seem willing to correct in spite of all the evidence). I gave you a non-astrological source earlier when I listed Allen's work, but then you rejected that because you said it "isn't even about astrology!". What you meant was, it isn't about the whole system of astrology, because Allen's work is focused on star lore and star meanings, which is why it is full of refrence to what astrologers have said and recorded about star meanings, despite the fact that it is written by a general scholar rather than an astrologer. In general, primary sources are better than secondary sources. Costmary (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I know what reliable sources are since I have had peer-reviewed papers published myself. What you have here is all the reliable sources I have provided, along with my clear arguments, and the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain adding her professional support that my statement is "valid, accurate and non-contraversial definition of western astrology". I am not pushing a particular POV but have simply defended an accurate fact against all your attempts to misrepresent astrology, by squeezing it into a narrow and inappropriate defintion that no one who knows the subject can relate to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound dubious, but when your first refs either do not address the topic at all, or else support the version you're contesting, you do not inspire confidence. In the end, we aren't going to take your say-so, since we can't very well verify who you are, but only your sources. You have also failed to provide sources that astrology is based on meteorology or psychology. — kwami (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The first refs I gave do address the topic, including the Allen text. References on meteorology and psychology are given below.Costmary (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What sources have you provided Kwami, other than your own misinterpretation of what you think you believe someone else is trying to say (which has already been denied by others who are qualified to know)? But I will answer your points, again, on this last occasion. I will also revert your latest edit for the reason that you basically took something which made clear sense to any reader and filled it with many points of potential misunderstanding.

For example, you inserted the comment “All were ‘stars’ in the Classical sense” without explaining what you mean by that and simply pointing to a reference that does not even relate or explain that point (presumably to cling to a argument you made earlier on this page that was rejected by others). You removed the term ‘Western astrology’, which now makes it seem that the definition which was carefully constructed as a definition of the western practice of astrology is not differentiated from other systems. You made the definition more verbose and added in terms like ‘abstract points in the zodiac’, for which readers can only guess at your meaning. And you replaced the term ’mathematically calculated points of interest’ with ‘various geometric points of interest’ – although the main additional points of interest, such as what are known as the Arabic Parts, etc, are not geometric points; they are mathematically calculated points. In addition, my definition used terminology approved of by the professional bodies of astrology (who prefer the one-word definition of this subject to be ‘study’ rather than ‘craft’) and you used an illogical four word definition of what combines to create the study of astrology, adding only ‘mysticism’, ‘divination’ and ‘prophecy’ to astronomy (for which you insist on adding the unnecessary word ‘basic’ even though the astronomical concepts involved in astrological calculation can be very complex and advanced). Mysticism, divination and prophecy are all too closely saying the same thing, and so this fails to give an accurate presentation of what the breadth and depth of the rationale that astrology comprises of.

My definition deleted your superflous word prophecy and added meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology and symbolism – a few extra words here yes, but these are the necessary and essential features that combine into the development and study of astrology. You questioned meterology and psychology, so let me answer on those points. From its ancient foundations and throughout its traditional practice, astrology has been concerned with predicting forthcoming weather, the direction of the winds and general meteorological conditions. The practical application of this is largely a part of what is known as ‘mundane astrology’ (meaning’earth-related), although as a philosophical principle it is embedded into the basis of natal astrology too. Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos for astrology, (the defining text of traditional western asstrology), sets out a defense of astrology that assumes that individuals are characterised by the humoral quality of the prevailing ‘air’ or ‘ambience’ which defines their predominant ‘humour’, in the same way that a plant has suitability to a certain season or meteorological condition. This view was predominant in the traditional treatment of astrology. For an example of how a modern astrologer works in this field see Carolyn Egan’s website http://weathersage.com/

And as I stated earlier, astrology is largely a study of the mind (always has been) and even before modern psychology was defined, astrological practice has always required understanding of human mental and emotional inclinations in order to facilitate understanding of psychological conditions and how these define predictable patterns of behavior. Therefore most astrologers are familiar with psychological principles, Jungian principles in particular. For an example of how influential this is in modern western astrology refer to the website of the Centre for Psychological Astrology at http://www.cpalondon.com/

So what I have presented is a definition which is concise and accurate, and as you can see from the comments of others, generally approved of. I have made a request to see if this matter can have an external review. Until then I won’t continue to justify this point, which has already been thoroughly explained and supported, and is suffering because you are stubbornly entrenched to a position that you are unable to maintain, having admitted that you don’t know much about the theoretical literature that relates to astrology, or the practical application of it in its traditional or modern sense. Costmary (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

An external review might be a good idea. Vsmith was right in directing you to dispute resolution; you might want to try Wikipedia:Third opinion or one of the subject noticeboards.

I've restored a couple of you points, 'Western astrology' & 'mathematical'. I changed 'abstract points in the zodiac' to 'signs of the zodiac'; pls tell me if that meets with your objections. I had already removed 'prophesy' as redundant, per your objections.

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the text. Therefore if we say that meteorology is a basic element of astrology, the point should be explained in the text. Certainly most readers would have no idea what we're talking about otherwise. These may very well be good additions to make ('numerology' and 'symbolism' don't seem likely to raise any eyebrows, though they seem a bit redundant with 'mysticism'), so let's see if some of our previous editors come back and have any comments.

As for 'basic' astronomy, that does seem to be the case. As far as I can see, astrology makes calculations of orbits and things of similar complexity. In calculating, say, the path of a solar eclipse across the surface of the Earth the math can get involved, but the science itself is rudimentary: nothing more than Kepler's laws and basic optics. That's something we should be able to ref. — kwami (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request — I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed your request from the request list at the Third Opinion Project because between somewhere between four and more than six editors are involved in this dispute. The 3O Project is for simple disputes in which exactly two editors have come to a standstill on a point as to which both of them tacitly admit that they could be wrong. (One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.") With the number of editors involved here and the clearly entrenched nature of their views, this dispute clearly does not come within the guidelines of the 3O Project. Let me recommend that you do a request for comments or take it to some higher level of dispute resolution. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry for the bad advice. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Kwami I think most readers would not have the resistance to the ideas that you have, and after all this discussion on a comment that others have agreed to be reliable, accurate and uncontroversial, I can’t help but feel that you only want to present astrology in a deliberately shallow light. I am not biased towards presenting astrology in a favourable light; I firmly believe this page should be neutral in tone, informative in its content, and balanced in its representation – including details of valid and relevant criticisms. But as others have agreed above (at the end of the ‘consensus?’ section) the introduction to the article should be an uncontroversial statement which aims to give a broad but accurate definition of what astrology is and what it’s supposed purpose and basis is. My suggestion in that discussion has been well supported, and yet you have ignored all the arguments and comments that contradict with your view, to insist on an opening statement that distorts the reality of astrology and concludes with a dismissal of the subject, even before the subject has been properly introduced and explained.

To refer specifically to your suggestions, the study of numerology and symbolism is not the same as mysticism (that’s why there are separate Wikipedia pages for them that I have linked to). The knowledge of both of these requires understanding of self-referential principles, with those of numerology and geometry providing the main rationale for the astrological use of aspects, which cannot be intelligently justified by ‘mysticism’ alone. The information I provided on meteorology could be provided as a footnote, or I am happy to write something into the body of the text in an appropriate place. The omission of philosophy is a serious omission, since astrology has a very strong and clearly argued philosophical logic which is why most of its well known historical practitioners were also illustrious philosophers. Your attempt to summarize astrology as a ‘craft’ rather than a ‘study’, which is only a combination of “basic astronomy, mysticism and divination” is inaccurate, and doesn’t portray what is actually involved in astrology’s theory and practice.

Also, you have now created an unnecessary repeat of the reference to the stars, presumably to maintain some kind of irony whilst now admitting that astrology does use the stars after all (nor would most astrologers describe what they are doing as ‘reading the stars’ rather than astrology; this seems to be a label you have mined in order to create a sense of inconsistency, an attitude which allows this page to lose its neutral POV). You state that the stars “actually play a minor role” but that’s your subjective assessment, having only reluctantly admitted that they do indeed play a role at all! As I mentioned earlier, some astrologers make a light reference to the use of the fixed stars, but for others they are much more central and important. Why create a blanket definition which is disputable and controversial when there is no need to? You are just adding extra words that generate confusion and misunderstanding. And why insist on such a controversial conclusion to the opening paragraph, using a phrase which is the subject of such significant debate at a place where it cannot be verified or substantiated?

So in summary, your proposal, which has not found common approval is this:

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.

Whereas the introduction I suggest, with a replacement for the final controversial remark is this:

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] In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the sun, moon, and planets; although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest.[3] As a study, astrology is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. Although not recognised as a modern science, its practice being generally termed ‘an art’, astrology has impacted upon the historical development of science.

In fewer words you have a more accurate and neutral introduction, which demonstrates what astrology is and is not, without needing to get controversial or cause offense to anyone. Then all of the valid criticisms can be raised in the place where they can be expanded upon. (And reference number 4 should definitely be omitted because you have mined this purely to find an unrepresentative remark that you feel supports your view that astrologers don’t know the meaning of the word astrology, and don’t make use of the stars; so the incorporation of this footnote is another example of information being placed here through a motivation of distorting the issues rather than clarifying them).

This is my view, but I now think that others, and not you and I, should look over this so that it doesn’t become entrenched in any individual’s personal opinion. My concern is that there is a prevailing attitude on this page, that prevents the information being improved upon, because of an underlying hostility (or at least disrespect) that some of the editors have towards the subject. Costmary (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a significant divide of opinion, here and in the principle of making the pseudoscience asserion in the opening paragraph - do you agree that we should make a request for mediation?Costmary (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two primary issues here. (I take it the various fields included in astrology are a relatively minor matter that shouldn't be too contentious.) Pseudoscience: I can't in good faith submit to arbitration, because this isn't my opinion to change. It's a general convention of WP as an encyclopedia: when it comes to pseudoscience, we call it as it is, up front, without trying to be inoffensive. I'm sure some Christians may be offended at being told that Jesus as the Son of God is a religious teaching rather than a simple fact, but nonetheless we need to describe it as a teaching, and can't accommodate those who might be offended. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And similarly, we should talk about the teachings of astrology on this page.

I didn’t ask for arbitration, I asked for mediation – because you are clinging to comments that go against the grain of the consensus. There are some remarks that you are insisting on for which no one else shares your POV. In regard to the pseudoscience comment, there are three or four arguing strongly that this should be included (not necessarily at the very beginning), but the majority clearly do not feel it is necessary to make this kind of declaration at the start,* before the subject has been properly defined and introduced; and no one has said that they are not willing for the remark to be discussed in the science section where it is relevant, and where we can look at the reason why it has been called such, and by whom, etc. Wikipedia policy does not say that astrology must be declared to be a pseudoscience in its introduction; it only says that it may contain the information. For the sake of neutrality and relevant issues I also believe that it is a point of criticism against astrology that needs to be given clear coverage on the page. But we should do that where we can explain it.

(*In addition to my own comments see the recent comments of Xpaulk 26 January, 2011; Fsolda 26 & 27 January, 2011; Erekint 11 February 2011; Hectarion, 11 February, 2011; Apagogeron 3 & 4 March, 2011; Gary PH 3 March 2011) Costmary (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For the other, the minor role of the stars, you're assuming bad faith. I'm not saying this to make astrology look ridiculous. "Astronomy" also involves the planets. The ref I used was the first one you gave me. The fact that you gave me such an ignorant author does not inspire confidence in your sourcing, but nonetheless I think it's the perfect one to use, because Brady has the same take on it that a lot of lay people do: "Why is it called 'star-study' if it doesn't study the stars?" The fact that stars play a minor role in astrology rather than no role doesn't change that incongruity: they are not fundamental, and often not used at all. The answer, of course, is that the word "star" has changed in meaning. The same thing happened with "fish": why is the whale in Jonah called a "fish"? Why is a starfish called a 'fish'? The reason, again, is that the meaning of the word "fish" has changed: it used to be most any animal in the sea. Same with why mincemeat pie doesn't have any meat in it: "meat" has changed meaning since the word mincemeat was coined. (Actually, some people put meat in mincemeat pie because of the name!) I'm not saying the current wording is the best we could have, but I think this really is an important point to make: when I was a kid, I though the writers of of the Bible must have been idiots because they didn't even know what a whale was, not understanding that the meaning of the word "fish" had changed. And it's hardly an 'unrepresentative remark': Brady's entire essay (the second page I looked at) bemoans the fact that astrology neglects the stars. That paragraph simply sums it up and so makes a good quotation. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

[Edit conflict from before kwami's last post] Given a few tweaks, I still prefer Costmary's wording as more succinct and neutral overall, and certainly clear enough on the ideological and etymological misconceptions about stars vs. planets. I do think, to retain consensus here, the word pseudoscience has to stay, probably even more strongly than in my version:

Astrology is a set [...] and other earthly matters.[1][2] In western astrology, the main astrological focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the sun, moon, and planets; although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various other mathematically calculated points of interest, although these are not central to astrological work.[3] As a field of study, astrology is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. AlthoughAstrology is not recognized as a modern science and is generally considered a pseudoscience or an "art". its practice being generally termed an "art". Historically, however, astrology has impacted upon had significant impact on the development of science.

More references for inclusion of the different related fields (meteorology, etc.) are probably desirable, but I don't see this list as especially contentious. /ninly_(talk) 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"field of study" seems fine. A couple problems with your wording, though:

"other mathematically calculated points": A star is not a mathematically calculated point, but an object.

"pseudoscience or art": No, it's a classic example of a pseudoscience. That's clear, and we don't want to hide it.

"significant impact on the development of science": Is this true? After the split of astrology and astronomy, which of course has a grey area of several centuries, how has astrology had any impact on science at all?

I agree we don't need refs in the lede for characterizing the fields involved, as long as they are supported in the text. Currently meteorology, psychology, etc. are not, and until they are, they don't belong in the lede, as they would leave the reader hanging. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re impact on science: for one example, Kepler built his Laws of Planetary Motion on his understanding of principles embedded into astrological theory. The irony is that his Laws still stand although the original reasoning is now rejected. But see below for my suggestion that this is changed to “has had an historical impact upon the development of scientific and cultural knowledge” so that we don’t have to get into an argument about how significant it was, and when it stopped being significant. Also suggest the discussions on 'Consensus' and 'Where are Dean's Time Twin studies' get attended to, which show that the information on this page which supports the pseudoscience argment is not very well supported (the Carlson study also mentioned has been revised in favour of astrology, and the page does not show this). In any case, by making a clear statement that astrology is not recognised by modern science we can present a comment that everyone agrees to and which is not subject to controversy. Costmary (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: meteorology, psychology, etc. If Kwami giveshis agreement in principle I will find some time later to look at how the section headed 'branches' can be updated to include this information. It is fairly important so this section needs amendment. Or I can give you good, up-to-date academic refs for others to originate the text. For meteorology it can include the French medieval scholar Nicole

Oresme's definition of astrology as subdivided into five branches: the second of which was the study of the atmosphere and the weather, usually called astro-meteorology. The psychology element can be added as a modern branch which has historical support from the fact that astrologers have always sought to understand the 'soul' as the animating impulse which is similar to principles in Jungian doctrine. See for example, the comments regarding psychology with relation to Alkindi's work, directly accessible this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/#Psy Costmary (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention, but I see what you mean by "other mathematically calculated points of interest". The old version with "various" should work there.

Your point about the word pseudoscience is exactly why I retained the word in my revision. I just don't see much likelihood of a consensus here without its inclusion. However, I do find Apagogeron's recent comment (in another section, above) pertinent [Gary PH's comment below, also /ninly_(talk)]. While astrology may well fit the definition of pseudoscience, that may not be what it is (functionally speaking) to its mainstream audience. This is a tricky topic.

I'm not certain about the impact on science, whether significant or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if arguments could be made about astronomy, parallel with the notion that alchemy has had certain foundational influences on chemistry and physics. But I agree, this would need to be objectively referenced if it is to be stated. Same goes for mentioning meteorology, psychology, etc. /ninly_(talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, I cannot understand the twisted logic that would make you want to cite a certain author on the public page, whilst referring to her as an “ignorant author” on the discussion page. I only want to pass over your remark but will add that Brady is a much respected astrologer who will shortly complete her doctorate on the subject. The only thing that would be ignorant is to quote her out of context to contrive an argument that doesn’t exist. And your understanding of the original terminology is fundamentally flawed, but that’s not relevant to this discussion here and would just turn into another digression. Costmary (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How is my understanding flawed? It is relevant to the discussion: if aster really did mean "star" in the modern sense, then Brady is correct in saying that the term astrology is a misnomer.

Brady makes a good citation regardless of whether I think she's ignorant. My comment was specifically re. her statement that astro- means "star"; if I'm wrong in contesting that, as you suggest, then my comment is refuted, but she remains a good citation because many people believe that astro- means "star". — kwami (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Latin astro comes from the the Greek aster which was used to refer to the stars or the 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'. It would be confusing to include a footnote saying that astrology ought to be properly known as planetology or solarsystemology, because without having the understanding that Brady’s readership is expected to have, a layman might take that literally. It isn’t meant to be taken literally, Brady is using it to make an argument to astrologers that they should use more star reference than they do. That's not because other astrologers don't use the stars, but she uses them to a far greater extent, even offering astrology reports that are purely based on star alignments and associated meanings. I'm not sure if no one else does that, but it wouldn't be considered common practice. Costmary (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your thoughts ninly. In the main I like your suggestions for making the text cleaner and clearer, but would like to propose a couple of points following on from yours.

I would keep the first suggested omission of the word "although", specifically to make it clear that these extra points of reference are in addition to the main focus on the planets and not part of the main focus - and then I don’t think we need to have the extra comment “although these are not central to astrological work”. (This is not particularly troublesome, but I don’t feel the extra words are necessary, do you?).

Otherwise the wording works very well. The pseudoscience reference is troublesome at this stage however, because it doesn’t give a representative global view of the subject as a whole, and isn’t, for example, balanced by the fact that in other cultures astrology is deemed to be a trustworthy body of knowledge. For example, what about last month’s ruling in India which dismissed a case that astrology was not properly “tried and tested”, upholding its judgement that astrology has made its case historically, and so should be legally recognized as a “time tested” practice that has been trusted for over 4000 years? (See refs below). Within the science section the discussion on whether astrology is a pseudoscience can take place in purely scientific terms, but within the initial introduction the presentation of the subject in global opinion needs to be balanced and representative of all formal definitions.

Since it’s such a complex point of discussion, and we don’t want to get tied up in knots, do you think it would work if it ended with a statement as simple as this:

"Astrology is not recognized as a modern science. Historically, however, astrology has had significant impact on the development of science.[citation needed]"

This surely makes the point as clearly as it needs to be made. Astrology is not recognised as a modern science – this makes the relevant statement ‘up front’, without leaving the implication that astrology even pretends to be a modern science.

With regards to the necessary citations, if others don't I can provide these when the text is agreed. Two relevant references for the India Supreme Court ruling, and how this offers significance for western astrologers are: Astrology is a science: Bombay HC - The Times of India, online at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Astrology-is-a-science-Bombay-HC/articleshow/7418795.cms (retrieved 08/02/2011); and Astrology is a Trusted Science rules India’s Supreme Court – What is the Significance for Western Astrologers? APAI, Spring Bulletin, 2011, #66; online at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/astrology_a_trusted_science.html (retrieved 08/02/2011).

Thanks again for looing at this from a neutral and objective perspective. Costmary (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that "astrology [does not] even pretend to be a modern science"? You follow that with citations that claim instead that "astrology is a (trusted) science"! — kwami (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They were my own words, based on long experience of the subject and its practitioners. Astrologers don't actually get concerned about scientific approval because they recognise that modern science is now operating in a different field. Also, you should check the link I gave you in addition to the newspaper report. Here you have a western astrologer explaining that the Indian report's use of the word 'science' does not equate to the way that the western world uses the word, and showing how astrology separated from modern studies like cosmobiology in the 17th century. Note an astrologer is making the point, so I suppose you could use that as a reference if you need one. Costmary (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(editing break)

I don't want to be accused of trying to own the article or of editing unfairly while the article is protected. However, if you agree, I'm willing to change wording that we can all agree on, such as changing 'craft' to 'field of study'. — kwami (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe best to give time to the discussion first as one of the problems has been edits made and then changed back again too quickly. The way I see this Astrology has modern developments etc but most people see it as an historical/philosophical subject -if they take it seriously- or light entertainment if they don’t. I don't get why there has to be mention of science in the introduction anyway. It raises the science interest higher than it needs to be. If there has to be something then it makes sense to simply say its not recognised by modern science and move on. No need to start off the page with a big issue about that. Gary PH (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I missed some of the new comments because I expected the dialogue to continue at the end, but now see that new comments have been placed inbetween earlier comments. I have tried to answer all outstanding points in the same way where they were raised. If you feel that any of your questions have not been answered Kwami, please let me know.

Following the recent discussions, and assuming that everyone will be happy with my provision of relevant material to cover the astro-meteorological and psychology elements (to be discussed to find agreement) this is what I would now suggest for the opening paragraph:

Astrology is a set [...] and other earthly matters.[1][2] In western astrology, the main a focus is given to the interactions and angular placement of the sun, moon, and planets; although the system also allows reference to the meaning of visible stars, planetoids, asteroids, comets and various mathematically calculated points of interest.[3] As a field of study, astrology is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. Astrology has had an historical impact upon the development of scientific and cultural knowledge, but is not recognized as a modern science.

Can we find out where we are at this point, and if there are any disagreements on the above? If so, can we have the uncertain words marked with an explanation of why there is a disagreement? Also, would it make more sense to place all new comments below, because this thread is getting too long to check it regularly for new comments that might appear but go unnoticed. I also think that we should wait and find agreement between ourselves before making piecemeal edits on the main page Costmary (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried picking at the words but I can't warm to the paragraph. The last sentence means nothing. People are trying too hard to create a definition around the scientific view, and we don’t need all this discussion on the stars. I fiddled around a bit and propose the following to introduce what astrology is and why it matters –or not!

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.

Some points:

I took out “divination” as this is the result of the study, not a contributing factor to it. Also, mathematics and philosophy are both important contributors to astrology, but this point is made in the description. We don’t need to list asteroids, etc, because the phrase “such as” covers this.

This also makes a smooth connection to the next paragraph.

Comments anyone? Gary PH (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have the word pseudoscience mentioned at all in the lead paragraph, but I could live with this because it doesn't steal attention away from defining astrology. I agree this makes a much better introduction because it outlines what the subject is and is clear and nicely worded. It's good.Costmary (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got to go soon, but a few quick comments:

I think it's worth stating explicitly that astrology is not based on the stars, when even one of what Costmary IDs as a foremost astrologer says that the word "astrology" is a misnomer because of that. (Erroneously says, but nonetheless: it's a common misunderstanding that astrology is about "reading the stars" in the modern sense of the word "stars".)

Astrology is not "considered" a pseudoscience, it is a pseudoscience. Also, the East-West divide is not supported: Eastern scientists see it as pseudoscience just as Western scientists do. The Indian court case certainly is not a pertinent ref: all it says is that the university, not the court, is the relevant authority when deciding curriculum. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, I get concerned when I see you state things like "astrology is not based on the stars". The signs of astrology, whether tropical or sidereal, have their original reference in the signs of the zodiac, which in turn are based on the stars. How can you twist this around to reach such a conclusion? Astrology is all referenced to the visible stars - the cosmic background to the planets. CostMary has also explained to you the reason for assigning the word planet to the Sun and Moon. So, why then do you persist with this line of reasoning? Your comments about eastern astrology also provoke similar concerns. While some objected to the teaching of astrology as a science at the university level, the courts upheld the right of universities to teach it as such. Why may we ask? Because the practice of astrology in the east is socially respected and sanctioned. It was not a mistake of judgement as you infer. Also, astrology is not defined by science. It is not a variant of science. It came thousands of years before science. It is focused on the expression of human concisousness and karma as a natural law involving the cosmos. It is a more complex field of knowledge than science with its simple correlation tests can easily judge. The worth of horoscopic astrology - and confidence in it - emerges through accurate interpretation and prediction based on an assessment of many, sometimes contradicting factors. I warned you that putting pseudoscience so prominently in the lead would create problems for people who view astrology differently than you do. You didn't listen and it has. Your reaction was to lock down the editorial process. If you and some other editors here were to approach this article with a little more respect for basic facts and the subject matter, the editorial process would be a lot easier and this article better. A helpful step to fix this article would also be to take on board balanced and thoughtful suggestions by the likes of CostMary and Gary PH. Regards. Erekint (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The signs of the zodiac are not based on the stars, at least not any more. They are abstract regions of space named after the zodiacal constellations. Even taking precession into account, they never corresponded to the actual constellations very well, as they are equidistant and the constellations are not. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m, not sure if Kwami has seen my response to him of 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC), but his remaining argument about the stars and why the author was making the point she made, was fully answered there.

If he feels that this needs a public declaration his concerns could be addressed by amending the final comment preceding the content box so that it reads something like:

The word "astrology" comes from the Latin astrologia itself from the Greek αστρολογία: ἄστρον, astron ("star" or "celestial body") and -λογία, -logia ("the kowledge/study of"). This differentiates astrology from astronomy (L. Astronomia: astro + nomos "naming”); the latter concerned with developing the known extent of the cosmos and its mechanical basis, the former with the significance of the effect of celestial cycles. Ancient astronomy did not clearly differentiate between the terms for star and planet and it was usual for Babylonian astronomers to refer to the planets as “the star of Mars”, the “star of Saturn”, etc. [citation] The word “planet” derives from the Greek phrase plánētes astéres “wandering stars” which was applied to the “seven visible planets” (including the Sun and Moon) because of their observable movement against the apparently static frame of “fixed stars”.[ref to explain FS do move]. Up to the 17th-18th centuries astronomers continued to use the words "star" or "stellar" in reference to the planets, but modern astronomy adopts strict terminology in which the Sun is the only “star” in the Earth’s solar system and the Earth’s Moon is not a solar system “planet”. Even modern astrological texts adhere to the traditional language of astronomy and so include the Sun and Moon within the “planets” of the astrological scheme, which can sometimes cause confusion to non-astrologers.

To say that astrology is “considered a psuedoscience” is more than adequate and meets all policy requirements. It is also a Wikipedia policy that editors should be prepared to bend and compromise when there are edit disagreements. There are many who feel the word pseudoscience should not be included at all in the lead paragraph, so Kwami I think you should be prepared to bend a little too, and give us your agreement to make these changes, since you appear to be the only one opposing them.Costmary (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bend in my opinions, but not on WP policy. Again, if you want to change this, bring it up at the WP pseudoscience discussion.

I have compromised on the other point, to the extent that your sources warranted. We currently state that the role of the (fixed) stars is minor, and indeed your sources demonstrate that it's minor. I did not understand her comment that "astrology" being a misnomer was not to be taken seriously. I'll have to reread it, but it would seem she and I were making somewhat the same point. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No WP policy is being broken. 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) This is clearly not the case here. Also note this comment: "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. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience). Again, this is clearly not happening here! Also see the comments at the end of the 'consensus?' thread where this and simlar points have already been made.

There is also clearly a consensus here, so I suggest that Gary PH's proposed paragraph is submitted to the administrator for approval, in the hope that s/he will be able to check the policy against the arguments and check this thread to see how the disgreement is coming form one singularly obstinate editor based on an argument that no one else agrees with.Costmary (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology has clearly been presented as a science historically. Todays astrologers may be backing away from that claim, but it's part of the history of the subject. It also claims to make accurate predictions about peoples characters and destinies. It's a pseudoscience. Mystylplx (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"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)

Where is Dean's Time Twin Study?

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

In the Research section, it states "...For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics. ..." and refers to Dean and Kelly's paper

So, at the time of publication of Dean and Kelly's paper in 2003, Dean's Time Twin study had not been published. p.188 "A more powerful test was made possible by data from a study unconnected with astrology (Dean, forthcoming) involving 2,101 persons, born in London during 3-9 March 1958." In Kelly and Dean's 22 page paper, there is only a page and half of information devoted to the test. It contains a very general outline, some conclusions and a small table. There is no other data, analysis or explanation. This is clearly a 'trailer' prior to publication of the full study.

Could anyone direct me to Dean's published Time-Twin test as I would like to review it for a paper for a Journal or update me on the status?

RobertCurrey (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting but flawed study; the reason being that it is entirely based on the presumptions linked to a simplistic application of western sun-sign astrology. A key assumption of the statistical part of the study is that births reported on the same day, from 5 or more minutes apart, can be assumed to be meaningfully comparable. Contrast this with hindu astrologers, which practice horoscopic astrology that relies critically on the rising sign in interpreting and predicting the karmic expression over the life time as seen in the birth chart (kundali). In this effort, the exact rising degree is critical. For them, the key assumption of the study would be seen as a ridiculous one. This is because they know that the ascendant, which begins the description of a persons attributes, moves on average 1 degree every 4 minutes. Even if the time is close, the location also has an influence on the ascending degree. Hence, both an identical time and place are needed for the horoscope to be identical and valid for such a comparison. In some of the cases compared, the subjects compared would have different rising signs and dramatically different karmic expression. Even with a difference of a few degrees in the ascendant for the same rising sign, the divisional charts, planetary periods and aspects involving house degrees could be sufficiently different to expect a very different outcome for each subject. Horoscopic astrology is a study of human beings, which in real life tend to be amazingly unique, such that no two persons are really identical. Even twins who have close apperance reveal a range of subtle differences. Why should we expect identity when the difference in rising sign exceeds even one degree? To assume astrology yields identical results in such cases is stretching what astrology is or can be. Until scientific studies take such critical factors into consideration, they fail to give meaningful insight into the validity of astrology. Despite such failures, the authors proudly conclude "A large-scale test of time twins involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioural, physical and other variables found no hint of support for the claims of astrology." Erekint (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Erekint. Have you seen the study or are you assessing it from the synopsis in Dean & Kelly (2003)? I don't yet have enough information to form a judgement. If you have seen the full paper or if anyone knows of its existence, please could you provide a link or details of the publication. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The subjects were born 5 or less minutes apart (not 5 or more...) and many of them were born at virtually the exact same instant and thus had identical charts in every way. And astrology wouldn't need to show "identical" results to prove its efficacy--just similar enough to be statistically significant. IOW people with identical charts should at least be more similar to each other than to a random sample of the population. Without that being true it debunks the entire field of astrology. I.e. if the charts don't mean anything then they don't mean anything. Mystylplx (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dean's paper has not yet been published but I anticipate that it will happen imminently.

I emailed Dr. Dean requesting detailed information on his Time Twin study. On 14th June 2010 he responded: "The data you refer to has now been updated, with a more-than-doubling of its number of subjects and number of variables. But putting this huge database into a form that can be analysed (not every variable is available for every subject) is taking huge amounts of time. Until this stage is completed, and the analyses finished, there is essentially no results that can be reported."

The highly cited preliminary results of Dean's time twins study, which were touched upon in little more than two paragraphs in his lengthy psi article, leave a lot of questions unanswered with regard to scientific premise, method, and analysis. I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it.

Dean's correspondence suggests that he is attempting to develop the complex parameters required to capture the results of astrologically associated outcomes. For a fair test, this would be the necessary method over the crude approach involving only a few very specific outcomes that were suggested in his psi article.Apagogeron (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Apagogeron, two points regarding your statement "I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it." First, the authors offer a rather firm conclusion in the 2003 article, as cited in my comment above. It is therefore hard to suggest they meant nothing by it. It would be good if they considered in their present work to make their methodology sensitive to the traditional horoscopic astrology of the hindus, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Importantly, as described in my comment above, Hindu astrology is very sensitive to the exactness of time. Second, you are right about the grasping for straws of astrology critics to denounce astrology, including this flawed study. It is evident in this dictionary article, for instance, that many editors here gladly accept the statement of the 186 scientists as one more nail in the coffin of astrology's credibility while at the same time ignoring Feyerabend's thoughtful criticism of it. The key point being that ignorance suffused by arrogance is not a helpful approach for the acquisition of knowledge.

To study astrology, it is helpful to know what it really is. In a few words, astrology can be seen to be a study of human karma and consciousness. As such, causality in astrology is seen to be sensitive to human conduct, including acts or thoughts aimed at appealing to the the grace of the divine through e.g. penance, sacrifice, chanting, meditation and prayer. In other words, it is believed that the expression of negative karma can be modified by our own conduct. This is why hindu or vedic astrology (jyotisha) is considered the sixth limb of the Vedic scriptures, also known as the science of human enlightenment. How can that interaction be scientifically captured by simplistic correlation studies? Due to the complexity of astrology, it does not lend itself well to a study of simplistic mecahnical causality, like it were supposed to be a part of the physics of crude matter as some preceptors of materialism preach. Astrology is a study first and last of human consciosuness. In some sense, while mass and energy form an identity in modern materalist physics, we can say that energy is one qualitative octave above matter. Consciousness, the domain of idealism, while in some sense a part of an identity triad including matter and energy, is, in turn, one qualitative octave above energy. While the three are fully integrated and cannot be separated, in some sense, the qualitative distance between matter and conciousness is signficant. Citing one great vedic master (and expanding) "as matter and energy cannot judge mind, but mind can judge matter and energy, it is the mind that is most important." The conclusion: "idealism is superior to materialism" as an epistemological framework for understanding the universe. In short, a more nuanced approach is needed to either gain confidence in or the rejection of such a rarified field of study as astrology is. This is brought out by the fact that in life, an unkind word can have greater negative and long lasting impact on a person than a physical blow. One can sense some crude beginning of a comprehension of this fact in the Dean et al study, but even it is full of shortcomings as noted above, suggesting a rather typical limit in the understanding of the subject matter. Finally, astrology, as a field of study and practice, is full of contradictions and confusions, giving ample scope for misuse and error by lesser practitioners. In this a determined effort to enhance the rules of interpretation and prediction through scientific study would certainly be very helpful. Precluding effective cooperation seems be the important episemological gap, which is based on the fact that competent astrologers of the east are beholden to idealism while scientists of the west have a materialistic outlook on life. An amuzing afterthought, who should really subject the other to the test of the natural laws of human consciousness? Erekint (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dean himself was an astrologer and 'true believer' who wrote a book about astrology where, among other things, he advocated the scientific study of astrology because he believed it would be proven accurate in this way. After 40 years of various studies into astrology Dean is no longer a believer. Mystylplx (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be unwise to assume Dr Dean’s position on astrology, Mystylplx. He is now a CSI (formerly CSICOP) fellow – an organisation where the party line has a history of being uncompromising with subjects like astrology even in the face of evidence (see Ertel & Irving The Tenacious Mars Effect, 1996 or sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins (co-founder of CSICOP)). However, many astrologers have found Dean to be very helpful and none of his own studies including his very promising study Unaspected Planets, have been completed. A case in point is the phantom Time Twin Study (forthcoming) – which is still much trumpeted and widely cited by sceptics – but it now turns out that seven years after it was originally promised in a paper on Astrology and Psi, it was never published and will not be published, but that he will submit entirely new results with new additional data. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless anyone can present a valid objection, I propose that all references to the Dean’s Time Twin Study (unpublished) here and anywhere else on Wikipedia are deleted and that Dean’s new test is considered for inclusion after it has been peer reviewed and the data published in an appropriate journal. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to Robertcurrey's proposal. Dean's "time twins" is minimally reported (essentially only two paragraphs) and it lacks the proper qualifications of full disclosure of where the source data came from, possible issues with the astrological premise, alternative hypotheses, visible analysis, and so on. It's an unfair claim.

My concern is that Dean's claim is already so well known and loved by astrology critics that, despite its obvious flaws and lack of credibility, there will always be many people who will see it's not included and put it back. There aren't any fair studies to replace it with and no one wants to wait for the promised article.

The "time twins" is an interesting, and perhaps unique, case where the study is so lacking in substance that it has managed to slip though the cracks of normal scientific discourse, which gives the false impression of acceptance. The whole astrological time twins belief, as well as the famous Dean time twins anti-claim, may have no relevance at all to astrology other than their dubious quality of good urban legends. As I've mentioned to Dean, I'm sure there are skeptics on both sides of this issue concerning anything as highly deterministic as time twins, especially as Dean conceives of them. Any mention of Dean's time twins should at least mention the anticipated complete study on which it is based, which is still forthcoming. Apagogeron (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that the main criticism I'd offer to Dean's time twins test is that the design does not take into account astrological "eminence." The matches were made on the basis of things such as illnesses, marriage, etc., which from a planetary perspective would be nearly random because numerous factors could contribute to them. You'd need a ginormous amount of data to even come near finding an astrological effect. To overcome this problem, the study should test for a convergence of eminence, as other successful astrological research has done. At this point in astrological research eminence criteria should be a requirement. A good design would be to have each subject take a standard personality test, such as the CPI, and see if there is a convergence of scores that co-varies with convergence to twin state. This would show an eminence effect, if there is one. However, we don't know if the participants ever took a personality test because Dean doesn't say and he does not reveal his source. He must cite his source to avoid this criticism and the possibility that he's just making it all up! He should find a way to test for eminence, or else the test has very little value because the known methods that produce results need to be part of the design. Apagogeron (talk) 20:05, 11 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.29Costmary (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 ([5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]) 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."[11]

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. "[12]

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:

1. Lack of scientific evidence supporting the theory.
2. Claims that cannot be falsified and tests that cannot be replicated
3. Lack of openness to evaluation, refutation or peer review
4. Lack of progress in the form of innovation, invention and improvement
5. Failure to address fundamental problems with the theory
6. Alternative superior explanations that conflict with the theory
7. 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. "[13]

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:

Template:Blockquotetop The following is from an article [14] 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) Template:Blockquotebottom

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.[15],[16],[17],[18]. 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.

Template:BlockquotetopWikipedia 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:

1. 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?
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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)

First things first

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

First off, we would need a verifiable source to say that astrology is pseudoscience. It's not sufficient to state here that scientists think it is. Opinions of editors are obviously of no relevance or consequence. Secondly, as far as I'm aware, the only source that deals exhaustively with a compilation of astrological research is Recent Advances in Natal Astrology by Dean et al (1977). Given its importance, this work should be prominently cited and relied upon when it comes to stating astrology's status as scientific or not, followed up by bodies of evidence since publication. For those not familiar with the book, let me have the author speak for himself. Following is the lead statement of the entire book:

The astrological literature is filled largely with demonstrations of belief. What it is not filled with are demonstrations of truth. The result is chaos. If truth is to replace belief, research is essential. This requires a critical review of the literature. Hence this book.

In this book 'astrology' means the study of correlations between living organisms (especially man) and extraterrestrial phenomena. It does not mean Lucky Stars or similar absurdities masquerading under the same name. Astrology has been a respectable subject for millenia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal.

In going forward, I would like to remind you of three of the five pillars:

(1) Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

(2) Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.

(3) 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.

Onward and upward! Petersburg (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And both the 'spirit' and the 'rules' of Wikipedia say the same thing - we reflect the opinions of reliable sources. They overwhelmingly state that astrology is pseudoscience. So we say the same thing. Case closed. AndyTheGrump (talk)

AndyTheGrump, the problem with your assertion is that neither you nor the other sceptical editors have been willing to share a single citation which demonstrates that astrology "is" a pseudoscience. Why not? Could it be it is because the statement is ultimately only a belief of the editors as well as the scientific community? I think so. The book Petersburg cites suggests chaos surrounding astrology at the time of writing in 1977. The authoritarian statment of the 186 scientists against astrology in 1975 sent shockwaves around the world of astrology. Since then, important research developments include further proof of the Mars effect and a reversal of Carlson's conclusions from being against astrology to being in favour of astrology. The refusal of scientists to consider this research suggests Dr. Ertel's claim of pseudo-rationality in the scientific community has merit. The case of astrology as a field meriting research based on scientific methods is wide open. Both the views of those sceptical of astrology and those favouring it need to be heard in this article. Erekint (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Shock waves or not, the Humanist is a reliable source and the scientists signing the declaration were reputable enough. If this is the best source to indicate scientific opinion on astrology then that's what we should use.Petersburg (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. [25]
8. [26]
9. [27]
10. [28]
11. [29]
12. [30]
13. [31]
14. [32]
15. [33]
16. [34]
17. [35]
18. [36]
19. [37]
20. [38]
21. [39]
22. [40]
23. [41]
24. [42]
25. [43]

That's 25 sources from the first six pages of google books alone. This could literally go on for hundreds of links. Are these enough? Would you like more? How many sources are enough to indicate astrology is considered typical pseudoscience? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]
8. [51]
9. [52]
10. [53]

Ten from google scholar. Yeah, it's pretty clear that it's not merely a small number of editors who consider astrology to be pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I don’t think anyone disputes that there are plenty of individual claims like Skeptics Dictionary etc. that astrology is a pseudoscience. However, individual opinions don’t make it so. The claim is about the scientific community rather than the sceptical community and in doing this we seem to be heading towards three rational fallacies here.

Any claim about the current views of the scientific community on astrology without a measured opinion from a verified source is obviously an appeal to anonymous authority like the cliché loved by journalists ‘Scientists say …’

Moreover this measured opinion can only include scientists who have studied the subject and looked into current research. Unless someone can provide evidence that a majority of scientists investigate astrology, an unqualified claim will be largely based on uninformed opinion (whether favourable to astrology or not) and will contain prejudice. Unless it is clarified that this is a belief or is in some way qualified that it is not based on expertise, any stronger statement on the Wikipedia Astrology page would be misleading to anyone wishing to find out facts about astrology. It would be like a false advertising claim that alleges scientific support for a medical product when it is not based on research. Essentially it would be an appeal to false authority.

As an astrologer, people sometimes tell me that astrology is popular therefore it must be true. I always correct that fallacy (Argumentum ad populum). However, I think we are in danger of promoting a form of it which is argument by consensus. Scientists may be critical thinkers in their specialist field, but as a group they are not immune from communal reinforcement and groupthink. Astrologers, sceptics, creationists, communists etc are equally vulnerable as a group.

Since it has been roundly shown that there are no longer grounds for the pseudoscience claim, but since many of you editors feel bound by the letter of Wikipedia rules/policy to include it, how do you propose it can be honestly acknowledged even from a sceptical point of view? Robertcurrey (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep acting as if wikipedia is out to prove whether astrology is true or not. We don't. All we do is verify that it's considered pseudoscience. It is. You have made the same error with your list of sources above - because you believe X source validates your personal belief in astrology despite never mentioning the word, you think it can be used on wikipedia. It can not. We can only use reliable sources that explicitly discuss astrology, not sources you think are relevant. We don't sort the wheat from the chaff to come up with an overall conclusion - that is original research and forbidden. We cite what the best sources have to say to represent the scholarly community's opinion, using both the number and type of sources to inform our articles. This is neutrality. And the neutral description of astrology is that it is pseudoscience. It doesn't matter if scientists are wrong, it matters if they think astrology is pseudoscience. They do. Textbook pseudoscience (literally - some of what I link to above are actual textbooks).

And just for fun, I'll point out that there are 35 sources that explicitly state, with no qualification, that astrology is pseudoscience. Focusing on one ignores the rest.

Final point - it has not been roundly shown that astrology is a real science. Your efforts above are extremely unconvincing and can not be integrated with the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any claim that astrology is a science. Robertcurrey (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU makes a good point: for Wikipedia's purposes it is irrelevant whether astrology is actually a science or a pseudoscience. What matters is what scientists think. Now, if it can be shown that the majority of scientists believe that astrology is pseudoscience, then all we need is one significant or a few relevant citations that can back up that statement. Quoting dozens of sources doesn't achieve that objective (this is not a popularity contest); we need to identify the sources that drive home that statement (therefore it cannot be from a single author unless a survey is cited). At the same time, it needs to be shown what practitioners of astrology think what astrology is in order to present a balanced picture. I think the Humanist declaration would be a good source for the scientists' view but I'd be happy to accept something even better. Are there any such source for the astrological community?Petersburg (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest we do aside from citing sources? Particularly given astrology is clearly considered pseudoscience and is used as a textbook example of pseudoscience? We don't need a survey (though it would be helpful), we merely need a sampling of the sources I have already cited since there are no credible sources claiming it is not. Though we can briefly summarize what "professional" astrologers claim they can do, we can not suggest they actually deliver. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I checked the first 6 of your references, and only one is deserving of mention from quality of content perspective (Philosophy of science and the occult). The other five are full of the typical pseudo-scientific falsities that skeptics love to flog, such as, the sun spends an unequal amount of time in the constellations and that they actually 'fluctuate' (i.e. precession of equinoxes), no known mechanism, it doesn't work, it's stagnant, etc, etc. I will check your other references in time but you'll have to do better than this to gain any credibility with subject matter experts.Aquirata (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We're looking at sources to support the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience, but you want to discount sources that go on to point out flaws in astrology or say "it doesn't work" or "no known mechanism" etc? That seems like a highly irrational way of dealing with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely, Bobrayner. The sources are such low quality, they are not worthy of citation. They do not point out any flaws in astrology, but numerous flaws are apparent in their arguments. They demonstrate how uninformed the authors are about the current state of astrology by simply repeating fallacious and ridiculous (one could say, pseudo-scientific) arguments that have been refuted several decades ago. I'm talking about the five sources that I checked, so this is not a generalization. Aquirata (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The books are extraordinarily mainstream. Having a reference in a textbook is essentially the best way to demonstrate it is a mainstream belief. The fact that these sources state flatly and unequivocally that astrology is pseudoscience - in fact hold it up as an uncontroversial example of pseudoscience that doesn't need justification or discussion is a clear indication of the mainstream viewpoint. Again, the purpose of wikipedia is to document in a neutral manner the mainstream opinion through verification using sources. The purpose of wikipedia is not to debate whether astrology is considered pseudoscience or "works" through extensive original research. Astrologers can believe what they want, but scientists quite clearly think astrology is nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This debate has evolved. It began with the assertion of a few sceptics that "astrology is a pseudoscience" and the insertion of a statement to this effect in the first line of the lead. This was hastily rejected by the pro-astrology editors. An edit war ensued and the page was locked down for a month. During this time, a lively debate has taken turns. However, essentially it has become clear that there are no credible sources for this claim of "is". Rather, the sources indicate that there is widespread use of statements that astrology is "considered to be" or is "believed to be" a pseudoscience. There is a world of difference between the two formulations. As there are reliable sources for the latter formulation no one can object to it. At the same time, there are scientific studies which find that astrology has some validity. However, the scientists involved also allege that the scientific consensus, which is based on the belief that astrology is not a valid field of scientific inquiry (itself based on pre-analytical assumptions of the impossibility of material causality, such as a light bulb in the delivery room having more gravitational effect than Jupiter) have ignored the results. Dr. Ertel and Dr. Eysensack have therefore made the claim that the sceptics are pseudo-rational when asserting astrology is nonesense when, in fact, their carefully constructed resarch indicates that there is something there. In other words, they believe astrology is a field worthy of research with scientific methods. As such it is potentially scientific. However, this is hotly debated. Some sceptic suggest the research is not credible because it is published in scientific journals that discuss a variety of topics away from mainstream science. In the end we are stuck with two opposing views, which are almost diametrically opposed. As we need to re-edit the lead, some consensus must be struck. We have made some progress as the sceptics have moved away from the "is" formulation to "considered". CostMary has also offered several redrafting proposal, ammending them as the discussion evolved. Can we build on that to develop a consensus for a new or reworded lead? Erekint (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an old and much repeated debate. It's always said "pseudoscience" but every now and again a group of astrologers comes in and tries to change it. Just like every now and again someone will go into the moon landing article and claim it's (the moon landing) a hoax, or try to turn the Contrails article into chemtrails article. etc. Mystylplx (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Now is the time to "Put up or shut up", Mystyplx. Erekint (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already "put up." I do think it's time for some others to "shut up" though...This has been going on for years on this page and it's getting old. Always a new cast of characters but the same tired old arguments. Mystylplx (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Mystyplx. The article won't be stable unless some consensus that both sides can live with is reached. The pro-astrology editors have offered a proposal for a new text or to find a way to change the wording so that all legitimate concerns are met. A reaction by the sceptical editors in a compromising spirit would be a welcome next step.Erekint (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise on what? Ignoring the consensus up to this point as well as various arb decisions? umm.. No. There is no controversy here, despite the attempts to spin one. Go argue on some other page. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

bobrayner – a lack of known mechanism is no justification to classify a field as a pseudoscience. It is a problem for astrology but not reason to reject evidence. This is supported by many discoveries in advance of the known mechanism.

Claude Semmelweis (1818-1865) introduced hygienic practices like hand washing in obstetric clinics. He was ridiculed by other scientists as he could not provide a mechanism, even though he reduced the mortality rate. Yet, it became accepted practice years after he died when Pasteur confirmed germ theory.

In 1899, scientists at Bayer unveiled Aspirin, as an effective remedy for various ills without knowing the mechanism. It was not until 1971 that British pharmacologist; John Robert Vane showed that aspirin inhibits the production of thromboxanes and prostaglandins, fatty acids that can cause inflammation and pain.

Rather than go into a long debate about this, please could one of the sceptics, like Hans Adler who I believe understands this argument, confirm this to others on this page.

A lot of points have been raised and it is time for us to focus on creating a page that informs the public about astrology with realism rather than our personal agendas - one that does justice to astrology while acknowledging its limitations. Robertcurrey (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you went with Semmelweis instead of Galileo. Semmelweis' idea started as a fringe theory but became rapidly accepted and mainstream as the obvious objective success of his efforts became undeniable (a significantly reduced number of deaths), and there was a massive convergence of empirical evidence from other fields (biology and chemistry) that ultimately cohered into the germ theory of disease. Astrology started out as a mainstream belief in the influence on the heavens. As more and more evidence accumulated that there was no reason to believe it and further there was no empirical data that was generally agreed to substantiate it, it became rejected. You're reversing the order here. Semmelweis' ideas went from what would have been a fringe theory or pseudoscience to a mainstream belief when it was confirmed by research. Astrology went from a mainstream belief to fringe theory to pseudoscience as research accumulated that the stars and planets are just distant points of light with no way of influencing humans beyond their utility as time keeping or spatial orientation.

Aspirin had no known mechanism, but it was easily demonstrated with empirical research replicated across countless individual subjects and locations that it worked. In addition, there was always a plausible mechanism through which it could work - plants produce chemicals, chemicals interact with biological systems. Aspirin is not an appropriate comparison because it was never pseudoscience, merely a plausible mechanism that lacked details.

Astrology has neither a plausible mechanism (gravity of a distant planet or even the sun is overwhelmed by the mass of the earth itself; the reflected light of planets isn't even enough to see by; what's left? I don't care by the way, please don't try to explain it to me), nor a well-agreed upon set of data that can be easily replicated or substantiated. It's most parsimonious "explanation" is intrapsychic - the Forer effect and a variety of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Neither require the invention of new rules of physics, biology or chemistry. The more appropriate comparison would be phrenology, or the miasmas theory of disease, or vitalism, or the geocentric universe.

We should be informing the public about astrology as a pseudoscience with historical roots in many societies - all of which developed divergent systems of thought. We shouldn't be portraying it as "cutting edge" or "unjustly rejected", because it is neither - it's obvious pseudoscience. For astrology to be accepted on wikipedia, WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG require extremely good quality sources to substantiate it as a scientific theory (I'm talking review articles in Nature, Science and major statements by the National Academy of Science), but the sources required to criticize, or label it a pseudoscience do not need need the same level of reliability - because astrology is clearly considered by most scholars to be pseudoscience. This is deliberately not symmetrical, to avoid POV-pushing editors from insisting on a "debate" when there isn't one. Please review WP:PARITY for more details. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, much of your statement should be placed in a box and placed above along with the FAQ. Excellent! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience is not supported by any evidence. The state of knowledge and evidence about astrology, while raising concerns about its validity, does not remove uncertainty about this fact. It is clear that some here, based on their understanding, firmly "believe" astrology is a pseudoscience beyond doubt. While they argue that astrology lacks plausible mechanisms, this only reflects their incredible lack of imagination about the nature of the universe. There are always those who argue that everything is now fully and exhaustively known. It happened in the 19th century and is happening still in the 21st, right here! Such flawed arguments cannot negate the fact that the statment "astrology is a pseudoscience" is a belief. As has come out in the discussion here, the statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience has never been proved. Trying to impose such a belief as fact is therefore violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). On the other hand, there are many who believe astrology works, including those who have studied the subject matter for decades. They cite scientific evidence as supporting this conclusion. Of course, they don't insist on the wording that "astrology is a science" or "astrology really works" in this article. They accept the uncertainty, while generally considering this to be so. In view of this, the formulation that "astrology is considered to be a pseudoscience", seems to strike the right balance about the scepticism of the scientific community and does not go beyond published sources and evidence.

The findings of scientists carrying out this research and publishing them in peer reviewed journals also need to be brought out more clearly in the article. The current discussion is inqdequate, even a hatchet job. The published comments of several scientists about the tendency of the scientific community to ignore evidence in favour of astrology, suggesting pseudorationality, also merit inclusion. These are significant views when discussing astrology. Arguing that the views of those researching, studying or practicing astrology are fringe because the scientific community considers astrology to be a pseudoscience is ridiculous, especially when considering that the article is about astrology. Let's not forget the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the planet believe astrology has merit. Is it so that the scientists really know better? Some do not think so. And, even if so, would that imply that those favouring astrology ought to be ignored? Of course not! In sum, attempts to overreach in an effort to discredit astrology and silence the pro-astrology views based on a self-serving interpretation by sceptical POV pushers of Wikipedia policies (WP:PARITY) is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia as an on-line dictionary. Erekint (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Erekint on those points.

WLU - We at least agree that a field that was once considered a pseudoscience is not always a pseudoscience. “Semmelweis' ideas went from what would have been a fringe theory or pseudoscience to a mainstream belief when it was confirmed by research.”

However, you dispute my original point that a ‘lack of known mechanism’ is no justification to classify a field as a pseudoscience. This argument was refuted by Paul Thagard Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience, which has been cited here by sceptics and on the Wikipedia page on Pseudoscience and arguably underpins the entire sceptical case. He wrote:

“Finally the lack of a physical foundation hardly marks a theory as unscientific. Examples: when Wegener proposed continental drift, no mechanism was known, and a link between smoking and cancer has been established statistically though the details of carcinogenesis remain to be discovered. Hence the objections of Bok, Jerome and Kurtz fail to mark astrology as pseudoscience.” The same point on plate tectonics was originally made by Carl Sagan.

When you state that Semmelweisz’s theory and evidence was rapidly accepted, you should also make clear that his work was heavily criticised and ridiculed by the scientific community. His work was never accepted during his lifetime and was only accepted when the mechanism was known. There are other cases where evidence has existed and been put to use for a long time while there was no plausible mechanism. Examples are the compass and the tides. The lodestone which transformed into the compass was not understood until the discovery of the Earth’s magnetic field in the 20th century. Also, the connection between the positions of the sun and moon (and arguably Venus and Mars) and tidal motion identified as ancient knowledge by Ptolemy was considered implausible but is now an established scientific part of natural astrology. Would you have argued that the proposed connection between the moon and the tides in Kepler’s Astronomia Nova should have been rejected as pseudoscience because his mechanism was implausible? What is implausible is subjective and limited to the vision of the scientist. It was fortunate this ‘pseudoscience’ was published and widely circulated in the scientific community as it most likely had an influence on Newton.

Anyway, until I can be persuaded otherwise, this argument is specious and has been widely debunked by sceptics. If other sceptics who have been involved in this discussion page, kwami, Hans Adler, ocaasi also claim that the lack of known mechanism justifies a field as a pseudoscience, then I would like to hear their case and I think it should be on record. If not, WLU I suggest you drop it as I believe by pursuing it, you are making the sceptical argument look desperate and unnecessarily inviting lengthy debate when we should focus on looking for wording on Wikipedia's Astrology page. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why this epic debate should continue if scientific sources are rejected because they agree with the scientific mainstream; if there is no solid evidence for the exceptional claims that astrology might actually have some value as a discipline rather than a pastime; and if many lengthy previous debates have gone the same way; and if there is no plausible mechanism, not even an imagined one among those who take astrology seriously - a group which appears to be mutually exclusive with "scientists". I am not fond of arguments from authority but, frankly, what I learned during my physics degree is wholly incompatible with astrology; and if there are any astrologers out there who can demonstrate an understanding of any more than the most superficial rudiments of celestial mechanics needed to borrow some clever-sounding words for their own hobby (much as some alt-med believers borrow terms like "quantum"), I would love to hear about it and hear how they think astrology actually works. Until then, this discussion is like astrology as a whole: Undoubtedly a big pile of words, and with lots of people involved, but advancing human knowledge no further than a hair's breadth.
There are multiple reliable sources which say that astrology is pseudoscience; these sources' unpopularity with believers, and their incompatibility with believer's views, does not disqualify them as sources. Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the attempts to lean on Semmelweis and Wegener - despite them being wholly unrelated to astrology - are an obvious fallacy. Those who try to use the Galileo Gambit merely discredit themselves further. bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

“ But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -Sagan ”

Again, both Erekint and Robertcurrey are missing the point. If Wikipedia were around during the time of Semmelweis, it would have first ignored him, then as a small number of poeple began publishing discussion, it would have documented this bizarre fringe idea. Then as more people started to publish articles talking about how it works, we would note it as a minority opinion. Then as the entire field embraced the germ theory of disease, we would have discussed it as a mainstream opinion. Finally, when only a tiny minority existed who rejected the germ theory of disease, we would have a discussion of Semmelweis' theories as the historical process to arrive at the current practice and talk pages would abound with germ theory deniers who attempt to push their absurd nonsense onto the page and be roundly mocked for it. Wikipedia reflects the current consensus - that astrology is a pseudoscience that only a tiny handful of fringe believers give any credibility, while scientists respond with "What really? There are people who actually believe in astrology? Shit, we need to do something about the educational system..." Astrology went from mainstream to pseudoscience, and you are both attempting to inappropriately push it back into the mainstream. The fact that two hundred years ago scientsits didn't know about the magnetic field, or germ theory, or plate tectonics, is utterly irrelevant to the fact that right now astrology is seen as worthless, credulous, popular nonsense. Stop arguing from past analogy, when we are attempting to deal with the present rejection. If astrology comes to be a mainstream opinion, then we will document it as such. Right now it's considered laughable bullshit that only a tiny number of persistent single purpose accounts on wikipedia attempt to give credibility to. It's not just that astrology lacks a mechanism, it's that it's considered by anyone with a brain in their head to be crap. Astrology is not comparable to plate tectonics, it's comparable to vitalism, phrenology, animal magnetism, the humoural theory of disease and hepatomancy.

I'm getting quite sick of the civil POV-pushing and if it persists I will bring it up at WP:AN or a related venue to pursue a topic ban. Your arguments and sources have no credibility, are not permitted by several policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT) and there's a damned arbitration hearing that specifically singles out astrology as pseudoscience. The statement that astrology is a pseudoscience is extremely well supported. The fact that the POV-pushing single purpose accounts don't like this fact is irrelevant. The argument from popularity won't change this. Do scientists really know better? Yes they do. That's why we write articles on evolution from the perspective of biologists, not creationists, and pages on astrology and astronomy from the perspective of astronomers and physicists. I've wasted enough time on this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is still an epic waste of time. You guys will never be able to get back all the time you are wasting arguing with Fringe POV pushers about something that does not need to be established any more than it has. A lot of people are now watching this entry, and I can assure you the crank POV is not going to get weaseled into the entry. Stop feeding them on the talk page and get on with more enjoyable pursuits. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Divhide discussions

Per Griswaldo's extremely apropos comment, I've hidden much of the discussion. This is truly a waste of time. Please demonstrate your consensus by keeping it hidden and dead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So by consensus(?) Bravo! above is the last thread worthy to keep alive for everyone's time and emulation? Please see my comments there. Apagogeron (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rawhide diaries

Wow what a bold litte show of temper after running out of arguments. Now the sceptics seek to cover their trail while accusing a few civil editors of creating a disturbance, threatening punitive action. You don´t seem to get it. Astrology already exists. It is not a fringe theory that has just been discovered. What is at issue is the labelling of astrology by editors who are sceptical of its claims. The only thing we are saying is that the assertion that astrology IS a pseudoscience IS A BELIEF. To claim "astrology is a pseudoscience" requires evidence and so far we've seen a lot of oppinion to this effect but no proof. Buns alone doth not a burger make. If you want to have "is" in there, you'd be safe to say "sceptics BELIEVE there IS beef between the buns". Erekint (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. They're just dealing with an increasingly disruptive editor. Not the first with this POV and certainly not the last. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You need a plural there guy. Anyway, WP:SHUN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, Brangifer, Mystyplx, Bobrayner, Hans Adler and Griswaldo, you can take your cue from WLU and shun me, but how will you deal with the informed and logically presented complaints of Apagogeron, Robertcurrey,Gary PH, Costmary, Aquirata and Petersburg regarding problems with the astrology article? Shun them too? Religious persecutions? Lock the article into perpetuity? The only durable soulution is to hammer out a compromise in the wording of this article.

PROPOSAL: It seems to me that the only editor here who has any credibility left with both sides is Ocaasi. Why don't we entrust him with the task of hammering out a settlement with a view to the main arguments of both sides, with due consideration for Wikipedia protocol? Erekint (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the Dec. 2006 Arbitration Committee went wrong:

"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."

Astrology is not an alternative to scientific orthodoxy and what source does this bizarre idea come from? Astrology, along with other New Age studies is complementary to scientific orthodoxy. It fills in the voids. Astrologers do not even claim that astrology is a science, but rather an art or technology that has practical applications. Wikipedia is promoting the irrational notion that either orthodox science feels its paradigms are threatened by competing alternative paradigms of astrology or that the voids left by science are scientific. This is ludicrous and lacks any basis that can be reliably cited. The ruling of the Arbitration Committee is nonsense. Apagogeron (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In what way is astrology supposedly complimentary to science? Mystylplx (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Erekent, the arguments presented above are neither informed nor logically presented. The problem you all have is continually trying to say astrology is a science (when that's convenient) and then saying it's not a science at all (when that's convenient.) Astrology is certainly presented by many practitioners as scientific, yet as a field makes little or no attempt to adhere to the scientific method. Several hundred studies is a relative few, particularly when most of them fail to support the theory of astrology. The majority of claims made by astrology have never been tested at all. These facts make astrology a pseudoscience. Do you have any other objections to the article other than the word "PSEUDOSCIENCE?" Because it seems to me you are making an awfully big stink over a single word when the rest of the article is high quality. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the rest of the article, making it even higher quality, those would be welcome now. Mystylplx (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystyplx, personal views on the place of astrology in science are all over the place. I am sure you agree with me that personal views don't matter on Wikipedia and that only published sources matter. Moreover, I am also sure you agree with me that claims about a particular subject matter need to be sourced and verifiable. If we have good sources for a claim but cannot verify if the claim is valid, the claim should be phrased accordingly. The big stink here has been about the important claim made here that astrology is a pseudoscience. The claim is easily sourced but has not been adequately verified. The request has been made to rephrase the claim such that it is not oversold. The same holds true about the claim that astrology works. It is a highly debated proposition. First, there are all kinds of astrology and frankly a lot of it is likely fiction. Second, there are plenty of studies which conclude there are no effects. Some argue it is because the astrology being tested is too simplistic. Horoscopic astrology is a more organised way to account for the totality of cosmic influences on human life. Third, there are studies that report positive results. However, a major lacuna is that no causal explanation is identified. Accordingly, this quandry about what astrology is in terms of science and its efficacy should be described in a fair manner, avoiding absolute claims either way. It would best that an editor trusted by both sides redraft the controversial passages. Many points have been raised concerning the lead and the science section. Fixing those would be a good start. Peace. Erekint (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What you mean by "sourced but have not been verified" is a violation of one of Wikipedia's basic principles about "verifiability not truth", though you have cleverly co-opted "verify" to mean something entirely different than it does at Wikipedia. Indeed by "not verified" you mean not proven to be true by your own standards. See WP:TRUTH for more information. The problem here is that you and your POV pushing friends are repeating arguments, over and over, that are a complete non-starter here given our various policies and guidelines. Please stop. It is becoming disruptive. Please also note that this entry falls under the arbitration decisions mentioned at the top of the page and editors editing in this area are subject to discretionary sanctions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Important reading for everyone here

• Ocaasi has addressed a few common misunderstandings on Robertcurrey's talk page, and I think it's very informative.

• WLU has described how Wikipedia reflects current opinion rather than true opinion. (Ocassi's description.) Brilliantly written.

Thanks to both of you for taking the time to write so clearly about important concepts. There are many long time editors who don't understand these things as well as you do, and many who understand them but who can't write about them so clearly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the cue from Brangifer, Ocaasi has suggested the following to Robertcurrey:

"1.Push to have the lead changed to "Astrology is widely considered a pseudoscience". That's the best you can do."

Is that edit change in the lead acceptable to others? Erekint (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to me. In our PSCI policy, we state, 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. It even gives astrology as the prototypical example! The current lede categorizes astrology as pseudoscience. I consider phrasing such as "widely considered" to be an attempt to water down that consensus, to portray it as less absolute than it actually is. Such qualifiers are used when there is legitimate debate. There is a hollow-Earch "theory", but it is also pseudoscience, and we don't say the Earth is "widely" believed to be solid because of it, even in the Hollow Earth article. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I also do not support the addition of "generally considered" to the lead. There is ample evidence that astrology should be labeled a pseudoscience, I don't think there's any actual scholars in real educational institutions who give astrology any credit (or if a small number do exist, they're the tiny minority mentioned at WP:UNDUE). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, I proposed this earlier and it was not accepted. My comments at Robert's page were more generally about reflecting RS rather than Astrologists when it comes to scientific matters. On the merits of this change, it's my personal preference that we don't label things in a definitional way, if possible. I don't believe Astrology is a pseudoscience; I don't believe anything is a pseudoscience--and I mean that linguistically. Pseudoscience is a word that characterizes a set of practices, and also a ranking of something's credibility. I wouldn't expect WP to say that Saving Private Ryan is a first-class drama, but I more that it is widely considered to be a first-class drama. That's the spirit in which I meant the suggestion. To me they're virtually the same thing in meaning but I find their spirit differs. It's the difference between 'Intelligent Design is nonsense' and 'Intelligent Design is widely considered nonsense'. To me, the latter is no less significant, it just sounds like Wikipedia itself isn't speaking.

@Kwami, I don't take the ArbCom reading either way. "...generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience" seems consistent with my version as well.

@WLU, I said 'widely considered'. Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted, but consider both inappropriate. I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter, to the point that it's even more of a pseudoscience than intelligent design. Because science has an empirical touchstone I don't think a pseudoscientific topic or label can be compared to an aesthetic judgment about a film. Also, since the consensus on astrology is even more pronounced than the pseudocontroversy of intelligent design (astrology has been considered by more scientists for longer and is better understood than intelligent design, which is really a recent extension of creationism and most scientists aren't even aware of it) I think the flat "is pseudoscience" is best. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU states "I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter" (italics mine). In other words, it ultimately boils down to what we believe and there is no absolute truth in the matter. Given this conumdrum, why can't we all agree to say something like "astrology is believed to be a pseudoscience", "is widely believed" as Ocaasi suggests, or is "generally considered" as Petersburg suggests? It would put the matter to rest. Erekint (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be going nowhere, but for the record. my suggestion was "widely considered a pseudoscience". There's no belief involved; it's a broadly held assessment and conclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Widely considered" is a good formulation (sorry for misquoting). If we have an agreement on a wording like that or what Petersburg has suggested, we can make the change and put an end to this debate. Erekint (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Popular astrology is widely accepted by the public. "Widely accepted as useful" is much better than "widely considered pseudoscience." Scientists are a very small minority, and a grossly uninformed one at that (to put it mildly). Aquirata (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. Why not simply go with the guideline? It is a consensus representation by many experienced editors. Why try to reinvent the wheel? This has been settled already. If one doesn't like the guideline, change that and not try to swim against the current. Petersburg (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see lots of discussion without much progress (which is not necessarily a bad thing). My impression is that the main sticking point currently is the p-word. So let's try to take an objective and unbiased look at this issue. Astrologers and pro-astrology editors insist that astrology cannot be labelled a pseudoscience because it is either not a science (art, divination, etc) or it is a science with verifiable claims (and it can actually be both at the same time). Skeptics claim that astrology is pseudoscience because even WP policy states it is so: 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. The current wording of the article is as follows: It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.

Now it seems to me first of all that editors of WP are bound by the first statement, i.e. (1) astrology may be categorized as pseudoscience, and (2) the article may contain the information that astrology is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. These two points are given at the current state of WP and futile to argue about. If pro-astrology editors wish to remove the categorization or the statement from the article, they will have to work on changing relevant policies. Even if all editors were convinced that astrology was not pseudoscience, they could not state this in the article without first changing at least the Fringe theory guideline.

On the other hand, and to be fair, it also seems to me that the case of pseudoscience in the first paragraph is overstated. There is a difference between IS and GENERALLY CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. It would be a nearly impossible task to reliably verify that astrology is pseudoscience (due to the complexity of even trying to define what astrology is) while it is a simple fact that it is generally considered so by most scientists. For this reason, the obvious and only possible way forward and out of this deadlock is to replace the offending statement with the proper one according to the Fringe theory guideline.

What I propose is this: Replace the wording It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved with this: It is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. This is the truth, it is easily verifiable, adheres to WP policies and guidelines, doesn't overstate the case and will remove the sticking point with pro-astrology editors in order to move forward with the rest of the article. All other points can then be dealt with properly in the main body of the article.

I would like to ask that everyone put away their warrior selves for a moment and consider this proposal at face value. Do you want to do the right thing or keep arguing ad nauseam? Come on guys, belief has nothing to with this! Petersburg (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be addressed at the policy page. If they agree that classic examples of pseudoscience may be described that way, so be it, but that's a decision that would have ramifications far beyond this one article. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Which policy states that astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience? Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We attribute opinions ("politician X is incompetent"), but established facts are simply reported. We don't say "according to scientists, the earth is round", and we don't need weasel words in this case either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP is it an established fact that astrology is pseudoscience? I'm striving to be a neutral editor (as I'm sure you are), and my belief has nothing to do with how a subject must be represented here. Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The PSCI policy was set by the arbitration committee in a herculean effort due of chronic attempts of True Believers to deny claims of pseudoscience in many many articles. I think therefore that if the policy is not clear, we should clarify it there, so as to not encourage those who would game the system on individual articles. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What is in the policy pertaining to astrology in addition to the fringe guideline I quoted already? Is there anything more specific? Anything better? Is there something you don't like about the guideline? This is not easy for me either but we cannot represent anything we cannot back up with verifiable and acceptable sources. Petersburg (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much it AFAIK. "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. 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." Above that (not part of the Arbcom ruling), they say, "If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

That is, we may call pseudoscience "pseudoscience". We don't need to hedge about it, or use weasel words, we can just say it. What we can't do is say it's "false" because it's pseudoscience. In the lede we say it's pseudoscience, and we do not say it's false. (As for the "scientists have received" part, that's mostly to do with scientific articles where PS enters in for some reason or other. That's not the case here: most of the article is objectively descriptive about astrology, with only one section (summarized in the lede) about the scientific interpretation.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm familiar with, too. However, I can find no reference within WP policies and guidelines stating that astrology is pseudoscience. We might believe that it is but this has no relevance in the article. Astrology is distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" as "generally considered pseudoscience" (2nd rung). Therefore I can find no basis for stating that it is, strange as this may seem. Petersburg (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They say that we can "categorize it as pseudoscience". That's what we do. That differs from psychoanalysis, where we can say that some consider it to be pseudoscience but shouldn't categorize it as such. The astrologers here are trying to move it from the 'astrology' treatment to the 'psychoanalysis' treatment. As for it being pseudoscience, apart from it being the example given, it's easy enough to verify with RSs that that's how it's classified. We've already done that, over and over. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, we can categorize it as such, which is why Pseudoscience is listed under Categories. However, it differs from rung 1 pseudoscience, which is the obvious case. And it differs from rung 3, which cannot be stated or categorized as such. Astrology is in-between the two: it can be categorized as such but can only be characterized as generally considered. There must be a difference between rung 1 and rung 2 cases, and this is what I believe the difference is. Do you see it differently from my understanding? Petersburg (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I read "categorized" as "characterized". Do we know they were talking about WP categories when they said that, or were they using normal English? (As in "priest-craft has categorized sacrilege as the greatest sin".) As for the diff from rung 1, they "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration". We give this more consideration: we do not simply say it's pseudoscience and leave it at that, but describe how it achieved that label, who says so, as well as the objections and the attempts to prove astrology. With a purported perpetual motion machine, we can say it's bogus without any references to that effect because any perpetual motion machine is bogus. (I'm reading the WP:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience section.) We're not taking that approach with astrology. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I believe that if policy makers had intended us to both categorize and characterize astrology as pseudoscience, they would have spelled it out and not left it ambiguous or open to interpretation. Astrology is clearly distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" and the description here should reflect that. As for rung 2, you do not go to rung 1 and suppose what we need to do for rung 2. You go to rung 2 and read it. It says two things: (1) it can be categorized as PS, and (2) it can be described as the majority of scientists considers it PS. Nothing less and nothing more. The reason why this policy is there so that the PS question is not avoided and made clear. Applying a single-sentence policy should be a no-brainer. Petersburg (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, nice try. You read something as something else when it suits you. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:REDFLAG and WP:BURO. The first says that extraordinary claims (future events for everyone born at a certain time all follow a similar pattern and can be predicted) need extraordinary evidence. The second says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: policies describe principles and do not attempt to specify every detail such as whether a particular topic is pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The first policy has no bearing on this. When there is a clear description of how to treat astrology, we simply follow it. It is spelled out for you at WP:FRINGE/PS, second point. Read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersburg (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly is an extraordinary claim? Two of the three bullets would argue the opposite. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving towards consensus

A few things are clear.

• First, verifiability is not truth

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Conclusion: a claim needs to be sourced but its truth can remain open to debate.

• Second,Wikipedia is clear about the role of bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice...While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.

Conclusion: bureaucratic obfuscation is not the way to go.

• Third, this is what the guidelines say on astrology as a pseudoscience.

2. 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.

Conclusion: "Generally considered pseudoscience" is the right formulation.

• PROPOSAL: do we have agreement on the following formulation by Petersburg

"Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

Erekint (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For the eighth time, no. Proposing the same thing eight times does not change the fact that you're trying to obfuscate the well-referenced classification of astrology as pseudoscience.

Take pseudohistory instead of pseudosciece. The premier example of pseudohistory is probably Holocaust Denial. We don't say that it's "generally considered pseudohistorical by the academic community", we just say it's pseudohistory. We're an encyclopedia: we don't compromise with the demonstrably wrong in order to gain consensus. — kwami (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguing by analogy is very... pseudo-scientific. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with astrology. Thank you for showing off your blatant lack of knowledge about the subject you are purporting to edit. Aquirata (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to be too sophisticated. Should have said, blatant disregard and colossal ignorance. Aquirata (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Erekint, I must confess that I didn't feel particularly flattered when you lumped me in with other, pro-astrology editors. However, I appreciated the gesture behind it. It's nice to see you come around to a more reasonable stance. Petersburg (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, I referenced editors who have argued for improvements in the present formulation. No meaning beyond that was inferred. Thanks for injecting moderation and common sense into the discussion. If we are to have a compromise both sides must yield ground. Compromise is often a solution that neither side likes but both can live with. This debate has convinced me that if a body of Wikipedia editors has already developed a certain formulation, we need to live with it. Editors on both sides have expressed unhappiness with this formulation, which suggests it strikes a fair balance. Those editors, however, need to go the source to argue for changes to the given formulation. This article talk page is not appropriate for that and holding up the needed edits as a strategy to preserve the status quo appears to be in situ. The question is if it is possible to bring the few editors who are responsible for the current controversial edits, and who fight toot and nail against the adoption of the Wikipedia formulation, around to this realisation through reasoned debate? So far, they have resisted all appeals for moderating their stance to reach a compromise.

RESOLUTION OF DEBATE: I've tried to develop consensus, but it appears to be headed for deadlock. To break a deadlock requires at least a 3/4 majority of the votes cast. It appears we will need to call for a vote on the question of adopting the Wikipedia guideline or not. In doing so, we can hope that other editors see the wisdom of making a change, in order to prevent a recurrence of debate on this single point. Do others agree with that approach to resolving the debate? Getting beyond this point should be a relief for all concerned.Erekint (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are asked to signal below if they agree or disagree with the following formulation for the lead:

"Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community."

• Disagree, does not need "generally considered to be a" or "by the scientific community". Astrology is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not a democracy, the policies, guidelines and sources are clear. Astrology is textbook, obvious pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - This is ridiculous and useless. This question is being posed because presently every astrology happy SPA on Wikipedia has gathered at the talk page here and someone thinks that they can create a pro-Astrology consensus out of these numbers. Prior consensus about pseudoscience and astrology's place in it reflects a much larger community decision. Someone needs to warn you all about the pseudoscience arbitration decisions and about discretionary sanctions. It is also quite obvious that at least some of the present group of astrologers and astrology supporters are here because of off-Wiki activity of some kind. User:Aquirata is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2007 until entering this discussion. User:Erekint is a brand new account as of February, also thus far a pro-astrology SPA only. User:Petersburg had 10 edits in 2010, 4 in 2009 and then some more in 2007 prior to jumping into this debate. User:Apagogeron is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2009 until he appeared in this debate. User:Robertcurrey is an astrologer with an admitted COI. Did I leave someone out? You all are starting to push the envelope of disruption and need official warnings. I assure you if you continue down this path it will not end well. The community at large does not have tolerance for this kind of disruptive POV pushing.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree with the suggestion to introduce weasel words that support a fringe POV, of course.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree It is not unusual for those who have knowledge of a subject to be interested in what appears on the pages of Wikipedia in their subject. The problem is that Wikipedia seems almost as a policy to make no distinction between good science and bad science, and to disregard rational fallacies such as straw man arguments and argument by authority, the same way that biblical scholars overlooked blatant inconsistencies and fallacies in the Bible. In either case, mainstream science journals or the Bible, it is only the citation of authority that counts and the godlike authority of the publication in both cases is taken to be equally infallible. This is a serious flaw, passed down from fundamentalist Biblical scholars to fundamentalist WP editors, that does not help forward motion in the resolution of disputes. There is no substitute for critical thinking. Given a critical approach, there is no good scientifically verifiable evidence that astrology is a pseudoscience, but there is some good scientific evidence that goes contrary to this fundamentalist belief held by the majority of scientists. More and much better quality research is needed and the pseudoscience claim in this article certainly does not help the global effort to do so. "Classic" is very overreaching because in classical times astrology was a science. If anything astrology is a protoscience technology because it has generated many scientific concepts used today. Astrology is very under appreciated and this article needs a lot of work to improve it. My two cents. I have read the discussion above and I can see that both Petersburg and Erekint have made a great effort to bring the sides together based on the current WP polity. This demonstration of impartiality is something we should all emulate as best we can going forward and I will support it. Apagogeron (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. If I were naïvely turning up at this page for the first time, the suggestion might attract a bit of sympathy, but in reality this suggestion comes at the end of years of POV-pushing, and patience has long since been exhausted... and the epic pov-pushing texts will continue regardless of how this vote turns out. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. This is what Fringe theories:Pseudoscience says. Why argue with that? If you want to represent astrology differently, go and argue with the policy. Petersburg (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. I've been watching this from a distance after a recent posting on WP:FTN. Suggestions like these and in the multiple threads above show a clear (? willful) lack of understanding of our policies here on Wikipedia and I echo Griswaldo's suggestion that these WP:SPAs drop the stick and should receive formal warnings should they continue to waste everyone's time here with these types of suggestions. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yobol (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)