Talk:Astrology

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

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

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

When astrology and astronomy overlapped

The situation is not easy to summarize in a few words because people in the middle ages had different opinions. It isn't true that the two disciplines were simply separate in mediaeval times. However, the following might address the issue briefly; it needs to be addressed because it concerns the basic issue 'what is astrology'. That has certainly evolved over time. So here's a first attempt:

In the seventh century, Isidore of Seville argued in his Etymologiae that astronomy described the movements of the heavens, while astrology had two parts: one was scientific, describing the movements of the sun, the moon and the stars, while the other, making predictions, was theologically erroneous. In contrast, John Gower in the fourteenth century defined astrology as essentially limited to the making of predictions. The influence of the stars was in turn divided into natural astrology, with for example effects on tides and the growth of plants, and judicial astrology, with supposedly predictable effects on people. The fourteenth century skeptic Nicole Oresme however included astronomy as a part of astrology in his Livre de divinacions. Oresme argued that current approaches to prediction of events such as plagues, wars, and weather were inappropriate, but that such prediction was a valid field of inquiry.

How's that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks good, but where do you propose to put it? Perhaps we could expand/integrate it into the history section? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I've reworked it as part of the 'Skepticism' section, given that we seem to have a de facto split of history from history-of-culture, it seems reasonable to have a Skepticism slice through time as well. That actually sets the modern skeptic bit on science more into context also, though that section's language now sticks out as somewhat POV compared to the neutral tone of the rest of the article, and it is somewhat repetitive so it needs copy-editing. The Theological section could in fact be made part of Skepticism as well, but it seems reasonable to have a history-of-theology slice in keeping with the others - perhaps it should have subsection headings (Ancient, Mediaeval, Modern) like the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What you appear to be doing is trying to make a history of skepticism of astrology section, just integrate that into the history section. I see no POV in the appraisal section, can you be specific, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, astrology and astronomy had largely drifted apart long before Isidore's time. Even Ptolemy treats them seperately. The second thing is that a lot of the stuff you are adding about history is not appropriate for this top level article. A lot is specific to Western astrology, though that article is a mess that needs to be cleaned up. We also have an article on the History of astrology. We really have to be aware of modern common usage here, and to clearly distinguish between astrology as divination and astronomy as science, even in retrospect. I would prefer that this article be almost exclusively about divination, with only minor mention of astronomy. That would delimit the scope of the article and keep it focused on a single topic. I'll look through the recent changes and let you know what I think about them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, they hadn't drifted far apart in Oresme's time, long after Isidore. I think the coverage now remains rather clearly on astrology, with only the smallest mention that some aspects of astronomy were once included - there's only the highest-level mention, with no detailed discussion of the cosmological models involved. Since astrology even today has many strands it would be strange not to mention that it is many-stranded, and we need even at the highest level to indicate roughly what those strands are. It wouldn't be right to impose a recentist view, even if there were only one of those, which there isn't. It is clearly focussed on one topic, astrology, and mainly divinatory at that, though given all the other varieties, that could be argued to be unbalanced, and a top-level article ought to give an overview of the whole subject, not one aspect of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are doing original research with the Isidore piece is the original 1400 year old text. This is borderline original research. Use modern secondary sources to describe any overlap, not an amalgamation of what specific people said from different texts; i.e you appear to be writing about what notable people have said in the past, rather than summarising current consensus in the history of science. You also appear to confuse skepticism with scientific appraisal, and lump theological objections in with scientific viewpoints. The sources in use in the appraisal section are not skeptic sources, they are for the most part academic sources. You also appear to be treating this as a purely history article, and adding excessive historical detail. There are limits to this articles size, and it can not be all historical details from Europe, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of separate strands to this set of objections, some of which may be valid to some extent and some probably not. Firstly, on article size, we can develop materials to a reasonable depth and then decide if some of them need to be moved to sub-articles: these are discrete and reasonable concerns. However, the article is not particularly long for a major topic. Secondly, the term "scientific appraisal" is itself surely POV as it implies neutral objective assessment by the men who know as opposed to a lot of unscientific tosh. The actual science certainly includes a large element of 'objections' and skepticism which I share. If an ordinary person not involved here was to read the article and answer the question "what is the role of the 'scientific appraisal' section here, they would surely reply "objection" or "criticism", it's the plain reading of the sense of that section. Thirdly, the historical element of a topic which has constantly changed over some thousands of years is necessarily important. Fourthly, the coverage of non-western astrology in the article will have to be worked on by other editors as I lack the knowledge to address those; they are poorly covered, but that is no reason not to work on the poor coverage of historical objections (for instance).

Fifthly, a recent edit comment asked "Why are we trying to separate out historical skepticism from the history section?". An earlier discussion seemed to argue (even converge on an agreement) in the opposite direction, i.e. that historical attitudes to astrology expressed by e.g. Gower in his literary writings should be separated from the account of the mediaeval period; therefore it appeared that the article was to be arranged with separate sections for history, literature and objections, i.e. we'd slice the material 'horizontally' by theme rather than 'vertically' by time. Both methods seem perfectly acceptable in principle - obviously they cut across each other, so overlaps are likely if we use both. For example, Gower stated objections historically and described the subject in his lit. works; that could be a reason for keeping mediaeval literature in the history section, but if that is agreed not be what we want, then by the same token it is fine to have a separate slice for 'objections' in general. That section would reasonably encompass both scientific objections ('it doesn't work') with theological ones ('it is not allowed'). These are not the same, nor from the same direction, but they are unquestionably both classes of objections to astrology.

Sorry for the TL,DR length but you did raise many questions at once. Of course, fuller answers would be longer than these brief sketches. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It may be more valuable to develop the history of astrology article first, and work backwards towards this article. 2. Much of the scientific appraisal is neutral objective assessment, such as the Carlson test, the Kelly test, the demarcation criteria of Kuhn, of Popper. The material is, for the most part, not based on opinion. The section provides more than skepticism, and we do not write for the ordinary person. On wikipedia we do not treat science as opinion, if you look at a standard science article you will notice that the scientific consensus is expressed in terms of being true. 3. It is important, but so are many other parts of the article, for example, Principles and practice, and theological viewpoints are particularly under developed. While it is true that often the answer is to expand those sections, but if you look at the history of astrology article you will see that we have a very similar extent of material; we really need to have some way of summarising the history article in this article. If we expanded all the other sections to the same extent, as well as the material for other forms of astrology, the size would be massive. 5. The historical scepticism is historical because the opinions are not necessarily accepted now. The cultural influence is not so time dependent, and has its effects across time. Elements of theological viewpoints should also be moved. I think this also makes sense in terms of makeup, otherwise every section would have a "Ancient, medieval, Modern" subheading, which is actually a division dependent on western astrology, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On Isidore, I used secondary sources. I agree other sections are poorly developed. The history section was developed based on short summaries of the History of astrology article, hence shorter than that, but with additional objections which had been overlooked there - I agree we can extend that article, but the interplay of practitioners and objectors has been important since classical times and the theme of that 2000 year interplay is arguably central to this article. Also agree that the subject is highly time-dependent. I suspect we'll find that oriental astrologies have also evolved strongly with time, so a 'year 2013' snapshot is potentially highly misleading - it isn't static. While science is more than opinion, it is also less than eternal truth: it is our current best attempt at describing reality, and always revisable (as Popper would be the first to admit). The science section is at the moment repetitive and dogmatic, and needs copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The concept of science is continually self-correcting and therefore anything goes is nonsensical. The continued support of astrology is more a mixture of lack of scientific education and cognitive bias. Astrology has been falsified where it has made falsifiable predictions; and things don't become unfalsified. Science is great at showing falsifiable claims to be false, and astrology has been thoroughly disproved. Trying to cloak the consensus amongst scientists about the falsity of astrology, because of your own opinions about science, does a disservice to the readers. I'm not sure what you are judging repetition by, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

INSERT: IRWolfie, your sweeping generalizations about science thoroughly discrediting astrology fly in the face of earlier discussion that we had on my personal talk page, where we established that your extreme view, supported by defective "scientific tests" of astrology, simply can't stand up to careful scrutiny.--Other Choices (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In previous discussions I had indicated that astrology was tested, and has failed. It was not dismissed without study; failing tests means it is falsified and being largely unfalsifiable and providing no means of self correction means it is unscientific. Post-testing and modern scrutiny it now has no leg to stand on. I have never accepted your opinions on the tests, and not sure where you think I have, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your belief that "astrology was tested" is an unscientific over-generalization. The parameters of the so-called "scientific" tests were well outside astrology as it is practiced, so to use a few limited "fish-out-of-water" tests to discredit an entire field of intellectual endeavor is simply unscientific. Furthermore, in our previous conversation, I discussed my use of astrological transits to predict an unpleasant situation here at wikipedia, the timing of which was recorded for all to see. I indicated that here is a possible avenue toward finding an appropriate way to scientifically test an astrological claim. If there have been no scientific tests of the common astrological technique of using transits in relation to one's natal horoscope, as I successfully employed it during my earlier situation here at wikipedia, then it is indefensible to claim that scientific testing has discredited astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As is shown in the article, "Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair"; it was specifically natal astrology that was tested and which failed. Wasn't it silly of the board of astrologers, to agree to the Carlson test although you claim it doesn't represent practices. Hopefully we can stick on topic and avoid discussions that don't concern the article. It is amusing that you count a situation which you forced, and whose conclusion was self evident as proof of astrology; I could have predicted the results of the incident without resorting to astrology. The reality is that if you hadn't have been slapped by the admins, it would have been something else you would have used to confirm to yourself that the prediction had come to pass; because it is completely non-specific User_talk:Other_Choices#.22astrological_knowledge.22.3F for those who are curious. Reply at my talk page if you wish to continue the discussion IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Carlson test, no it wasn't silly for that particular group of astrologers to participate in a "fish-out-of-water" experiment. Scientific experiments fail all the time, but that doesn't discredit the experimentation process. But it's simply a travesty that the Carlson experiment is seized upon by ignorant pseudo-scientific ideologues to proclaim that "astrology has been discredited."

And with your mistaken association of my use of an astrological prediction technique with the incident when I got slapped by the admins, you demonstrate that your memory is faulty. You might want to go review the conversation on my talk page. The actual incident was the banning of Zac from all astrology-related articles one month later.--Other Choices (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insert words in my mouth, specially when they are miles from what I said. I believe that science works. FWIW, I'm coming to believe that Astrology is pretty much a superstition/religion (with magical overtones), and would wish it could be handled as such, i.e. described as a practice that had nothing to do with science, but which people appear to make use of for a range of reasons. Wikipedia's insistence that it is not like this makes editing extremely difficult, as most sources are excluded as being informed from the inside - it's as if the science of medicine were allowed to be described only by referring to the work of sociologists and anthropologists who had written about the odd conduct of medics and nurses. I'm aware of the falsifiable near-impossibility of changing such a policy, but it really is doing a massive disservice to readers. So please leave my supposed cloaking of science out of it, I'm doing nothing of the sort, nor trying to. Science is big enough to need no such protection - it will always show it is correct by working, e.g. making correct predictions, not by being defended.

By the way, the opinions of philosophers of science, insofar as they are reflecting about science, are not 'scientific' but philosophical (meta-scientific); philosophers do not generally practise science (and when they do, they aren't doing philosophy).

I'd like to talk about the repetition under separate heading if that's ok, it's an unrelated matter, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not say you hold that belief about science; rather I am hoping to edge you away from that line of reasoning. The issue with treating it purely as a religion is that astrologers will and have come to this page and find the content offensive and unrepresentative (many of them are editors here also) if it says it is a religion in no uncertain terms; a large group of astrologers still view it as science, which is part of why it is viewed as pseudoscience (that and making claims which are under the domain of science). We need good secondary sources to capture this diversity without resorting to original research. I've generalised the appraisal section to include your last point. The philosophers of science are mentioned here because they are involved in characterising the demarcation between astrology and science. An issue with the philosophy section is that it has not been generalised to the current consensus but rather focuses on famous philosophers; something which I have been working on and hope to correct in the coming days, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy-editing 'Scientific appraisal'

The addition of Kuhn to the 'Scientific appraisal' section has been beneficial, adding Kuhn's emphasis on actual historical change.

The three sections (unnamed, Effectiveness, Philosophy of science) and their six paragraphs are better than before but still jump about between topics, and the same topics are mentioned repeatedly. For example, the topic of 'failed prediction when scientifically tested' is mentioned in para 1, para 2 quote, para 4 (presumably the intended home for this topic). The topic of falsifability is mentioned in paras 3 and 4, and it is defined in para 4 after being used in para 3 (which is now in a different subsection). The whole section needs rewriting to 1) introduce the concepts, 2) list the defects of astrology, and 3) provide the evidence for those defects. At the moment it scampers backwards and forwards like an excited puppy with a toilet roll. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The appraisal does more than those 3 things. It goes beyond listing defects, and includes its use as the quintessential non-science/pseudoscience for discussions in the philosophy of science (I'm still adding to that though, so expect changes), and also includes the study of psychological factors for belief in astrology (Barnum effect etc). Viewing it purely as "the criticism section" or some such is not what it is (not that I'm saying you do). This section is a summary of another article, and there is going to be a certain amount of introducing things, in summary, so as to limit the text length here, but I will look at the flow, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian material deleted from Omen article

This is material I removed from the Omen article. It seemed that it belonged in this article, if anywhere: Leptus Froggi (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Indian astrology "Nimmita" or "shukuna shastra" is the identification and interpretation of omens in Hindu astrology. Omens seen, heard, or even visualized at the initiation of an activity are said to foretell the outcome of the activity. Shakun & Utpaatsis a branch of Indian astrology dealing with; interpretation of dreams, status of living & non-living items in the environment, sounds produced by human & animals, analysis of portents, and modes of pacification of adverse omens and portents. It acts as a guide in horary astrology when there is a stalemate. In Nimmita it is thought that coming events reveal their results prior to them actually occurring in a means similar to foreshadowing in stories. According to Nimmita, omens observed at the start of an action foretell its outcome. As a result when an adverse omen occurs some practitioners of Nimmita will say the activity should not be initiated. The treatises on Hindu astrology have discussed omens in detail in regards to "travel elections". On seeing an inauspicious omen the treatises state the person should halt their journey and return to the starting point. Upon reaching the starting point the traveler is advised to recite Pranayam (a specific Mantra’s recitation) eleven times and then start the journey once more. If an inauspicious omen is again seen during the trip the traveler should return to the starting point once more and recite Pranayam 16 times, restarting the journey once more. Should an inauspicious omen be observed a third time the treatises state the journey should be abandoned. Interpretation In Nimmita numerous different aspects of the omen come into play in interpreting what the omen means. The severity of an omen is assessed based on its position with respect to the observer, its direction in respect to the observer, the time of its observation, the speed of the omen, the sounds heard during the omen, and the place where an omen is observed.

"and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value"

The lede of the article currently reads: "At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]"
(1) This pair of sentences is supported by footnote 3, EXCEPT for the part that is in boldface above, which is completely absent from the source. For that simple reason, the part in boldface should be deleted from the lede.
(2)Furthermore, inclusion of the phrase in question is simply illogical -- "subsequent controlled studies" had absolutely nothing to do with astrology's decline in popularity in the 18th and 19th century!
(3) Finally, the inclusion of the phrase in question appears to be WP:SYNTH, giving the grossly inaccurate impression that "controlled studies" had something to do with the decline in the popularity of astrology.
For all of these reasons, the phrase "and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value" should be deleted from the lede.--Other Choices (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It was bad styling, I agree. I've made some changes. Input? François Robere (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about styling, it's about content. The source makes no mention of "modern scientific method" or "subsequent controlled studies," so such language isn't appropriate in this sentence. And furthermore, this language is unsourced WP:SYNTH, falsely implying that astrology's loss of popularity was related to modern scientific studies or the modern scientific method.--Other Choices (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And for whatever it's worth, the issue of scientific testing is brought up in the very next paragraph, which works well with the general flow of the lede.--Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The removed content accurately summarizes the content of the article, which is the purpose of the lede. That being said, the lede is beefy enough as it is and the sentence doesn't flow well, given the last paragraph. I agree with the change. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of it is simply styling. So we'll start with that: It's true that the next paragraph deals with scientific testing etc., but the reference was still in place in the first paragraph to summarise the historical chapter. The is, the first finishes the historical review, and the second deals with a different subject which is previous research. They concur, but with adequate phrasing they should not overlap and be redundant.

As for the decline etc. - I agree with both you and Tippy, but now there's a different problem which is part of what I was trying to mend - "called into question" leads straight to "declined" - which is not obvious. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "declined" fits the source's language: "lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable." I think we need to be really careful here to stick to our sources -- either Encyclopedia Britannica (because it is cited for this sentence) or perhaps adding a sentence based on material that is cited later in the article (in which case a citation in the lede shouldn't be necessary). The Encyclopedia Britannica source is very brief -- it reads as follows:

"By the 17th century, however—with the displacement of the Earth from the centre of the universe in the new astronomy of Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo (1564–1642), and Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and with the rise of the new mechanistic physics of Descartes (1596–1650) and Newton (1643–1727)—astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable. Though Kepler attempted to devise a new method of computing astrological influences in the heliocentric (Sun-centred) universe, he did not succeed.

"In the West, however, Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology, yet Western astrology is far from dead, as demonstrated by the strong popular following it gained in the 1960s. There were even attempts to reestablish a firm theoretical basis for it, notably by the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin in his The Scientific Basis of Astrology(1964), though with results that are at best inconclusive."

--Other Choices (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They are almost too succinct not to quote. Not extremely happy with the new phrasing, but the direction is better. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

New phrasing seems awkward, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this version. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is called into question is not enough in this case for common belief declined. Just "calling into question" does not cause an entire occupation to disappear - something more has to happen, such as a complete loss of scientific credibility. François Robere (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's logical, but the problem here is that the reliable sources don't give us "something more," and even puzzle about this lack of "something more." For example, to quote Peter Whitfield's Astrology: A History (London: The British Library, 2001): "Surprising as it seems, none of the scientists of the seventeenth century turned their attention to mounting a critical attack on astrology in the light of the new knowledge. The connection between the demise of astrology and the scientific revolution is one that has been made only by later historians." (p. 180) "The truth is that Newton evinced no interest whatever in astrology. He neither attacked nor defended it, but, in common with almost all the scientists and intellectual elite of his time, he simply ignored it." (p. 187)

--Other Choices (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, but it's a whole different source. What did cause its decline, then?

As for the Britannica reference - it does give "something more": "astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable", as well as clearly stating "Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology"; this is why I said it's almost too succinct not to quote.

At any rate, we're now faced with the problem of how to treat this all issue in light of conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict. In scholarship, we use "call into question" as a noncommittal way of calling something wrong. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a conflict here. EB simply sums up later historians' assessment of the decline of astrology, while Whitfield points out the lack of a "smoking gun" behind such assessment. While the quote from EB is tempting to use, I'm inclined to wonder if it's bad form to quote another encyclopedia in a wikipedia article.--Other Choices (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Tippy: Only as a euphemism. As a matter of meaning these are not the same.

Other: This isn't about a "smoking gun" (ie "none of the scientists... turned their attention to... astrology") but about the historical process. Here you see a clear contradiction: "with the... new astronomy... and with the rise of the new mechanistic physics... astrology lost its intellectual viability and became increasingly recognized as scientifically untenable" and "Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology"; and "The connection between the demise of astrology and the scientific revolution is one that has been made only by later historians". François Robere (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following. Maybe it's easier if you suggest new text. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"Called into question" is "called into question". How that latter becomes astrology's demise is unclear. We have two conflicting resources regarding that. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly standard to use a tertiary source in a lead. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to James Holden in "A History of Horoscopic Astrology", one major reason why interest in astrology seriously declined in Europe around and after 1700 was “the upsurge of newspapers, novels, and musical entertainment. With these things available, literate people with a little money to spend could find more pleasant ways to amuse themselves than by reading prophetic almanacs” Another reason why astrology declined is because the popes began to shut it down from the late 1500s onwards. Apart from religious qualms, the popes did not like astrologers predicting their deaths! The first bull against astrology was issued in 1585 and another one in 1631. Universities also began to abolish their chairs of astrology commencing in 1572 (Bologna). Students began turning away from an interest in astrology. The third reason why astrology declined has already been well documented here – the rise of scientific rationalism.Terry Macro (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest something along these lines following the reference to physics and rationalism: "During the following century public interest in astrology declined and today it is considered at a most a minor form of entertainment" or some such thing (the points being these: a) mentioning the decline; b) not mentioning a reason (at most "several theories have been proposed"; c) leading to today), and incorporating whatever source is not yet in the body. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Which reference are you referring to? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Those mentioned above: Holden and Whitfield, the former not mentioned in the "early modern" history section, the latter not mentioned at all. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use the Holden reference, the details are: James Herschel Holden, "A History of Horoscopic Astrology", AFA Inc, Arizona, 2006, pp 180-181.Terry Macro (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Holden is an amateur historian with no relevant qualifications. AFA is a fringe press by a sham "academic" or "professional" organization with no reputation of fact-checking or accuracy. The source fails WP:RS by a wide mile. His analysis may be true, and I find his first explanation the most compelling of all, but as he did not bother to publish it in a real academic publication, we cannot use it.

Whitfield is a real historian, and has written the ten-volume Grolier History of Science. His Astrology: A History was published by the British Museum, which is very reputable. It's on par with the Encylopedia Britanica article.

Campion is a qualified historian of astrology, and has published peer-reviewed work on classical and medieval astrology. He unfortunately decided to publish his magnum opus, A History of Western Astrology, in a non-academic press, without the benefit of scholarly review. He's also a major fringe proponent, and a major author of fringe blither of the most embarrassing sort. His work should be used with caution, especially for anything related to modern astrology.

Reliable sources for the history of astrology after the 1700s are scarce as hens' teeth. The topic has been essentially ignored by modern scholars, who concentrate on classical and medieval astrology instead. About the only reliable sources available for modern astrology pertain to scientific validity, or rather lack thereof. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So we're back to the contradtiction between Enc. Britannica and Whitfield's Astrology (as explained above). I repeat my suggestion from earlier in this discussion: "I suggest something along these lines following the reference to physics and rationalism: "During the following century public interest in astrology declined and today it is considered at a most a minor form of entertainment" or some such thing (the points being these: a) mentioning the decline; b) not mentioning a reason (at most "several theories have been proposed"; c) leading to today), and incorporating whatever source is not yet in the body." (ie Whitfield, which is not mentioned in that section). François Robere (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified."

The "Science" section contains the statement, "Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified." This sentence is a generalization, implying that astrology has made more than one falsifiable prediction, all of which have been falsified. This generalization is reinforced by the (unsourced) sentence immediately following: "In the most famous example, the Carlson test, which included a committee of scientists and a committee of astrologers, led to the conclusion that Natal astrology performed no better than chance."
However, the source used to support the sentence in question refers to a SINGLE example -- the Carlson test. The source -- Zarka, p. 424 -- reads as follows: "its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable." "The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable ... and were falsified !" (ellipses in original)
In other words, the article transforms Zarka's "notable exception" into "the most famous example" and uses this SINGLE example to falsely support the general statement,
"Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified." Either we need other examples from reliable sources of astrology making falsifiable predictions (carefully avoiding WP:SYNTH), or the language of the article needs to be changed.--Other Choices (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I took a hack at it. What do you think? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that "astrologers" is better than "astrology." If we actually mention the Carlson test (which I think is a good idea), then perhaps a summary is in order. In a nutshell, the published account reports that astrologers failed to consistently match individual horoscopes to the individual's score on a standardized personality test. I bumped into a paywall at Nature, but I found a summary of the Carlson test here. (Not suggesting we use that link for the article, just a short-cut to discuss Carlson.)--Other Choices (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps "falsifiable predictions made USING [not 'by'] astrology."--Other Choices (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"When astrologers have made falsifiable predictions, the predictions have been proven wrong." Focus on "astrologers", and avoid reusing the word "falsifiable". It's too complex for many people to understand in the first place. Just use it once (wikilinked) and then use ordinary words. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to have the same problem as the original text -- it is generalizing from one single example. Are there any other examples (besides the Carlson test) in reliable sources discussing astrologers making falsifiable predictions?--Other Choices (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG it is not necessary to have gold-plated sources when dealing with a topic like this. It is best to avoid overstating the case against astrology, but an encyclopedic article has to answer the questions "is astrology a useful method of predicting the future?". Since no reliable source answers "yes", and since REDFLAG abundantly applies, relying on a single example is fine. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the main article about the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think certain people are going to extremes about what they think is original research and being pedantic. The clear intention of the article is to say that astrology is usaully vague, with the Carlson test being a notable exception, where astrology fails. Asking for "examples from reliable sources of astrology making falsifiable prediction" is the SYNTH, not this text. The science section is a summary section of the main article. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, the mind boggles at your labeling WP:SYNTH a question on a talk page. And furthermore, you have argued beyond your sources before, so it simply makes sense to double-check your phrasing and assertions when not supported by the cited source.

Thank you for providing more examples of scientific testing of astrology. Unfortunately, you added them to the article, not to the talk page, creating noticeable imbalance in the article. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the scientific testing of astrology -- I would welcome such an article if you choose to develop it. EDIT: Oops, I see that there is already an article on the subject, my bad. In the existing article, I think that your additional examples could be reduced to additional footnotes covering the statement that where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.

Regarding the Carlson test, I think the essential fact is that the astrologers failed to match horoscopes to results from a standardized personality test at a level higher than chance. I think that should be added, and some of the details you added should be trimmed, perhaps to be relocated in an article on the scientific testing of astrology.--Other Choices (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for these to become a footnote. The scientific assessment of astrology holds considerable weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a question of balance within the article as a whole, combined with the need to keep it from getting too long. I've had my say; I'll defer to other editors on what (if anything) to trim.--Other Choices (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The science section is only about a seventh of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It WAS about a seventh of the article. Now it's about a fifth. Please keep in mind that the science section includes fully one third of the footnotes.--Other Choices (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It includes a third of the footnotes because it is well referenced. At one point the science section was nearly half the article: [1] since I had spent some months expanding it, before I created the new sub-article. Thus I do not consider even one fifth that much. There are a great deal of reliable sources that discuss this area. Probably far more than even the history of astrology which dominates this article and is overly long. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the science section includes a third of the footnote space because it contains several big blocks of additional information -- see footnotes 6 and 118, for example. I'm not objecting to this, beyond the general concern to strive for brevity. The "history of astrology" section covers several different civilizations over a period of over 3000 years -- each of which deserves its own paragraph. I'm not saying there is no fat in there (I'd start by looking at the second paragraph of the "Ancient World" sub-section), but once again I think the science section is out of balance. I'm inclined to doubt your speculation about the relative number of reliable sources. And once again, I think mention of the Carlson test should not only trim excessive details about how the test was administered (those details belong in the scientific testing article), but it should also include exactly what got tested -- the attempt to match horoscope readings to results from a standardized psychological test.--Other Choices (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

While there are good and reliable sources for the history of astrology, especially classical and medieval wetsern astrology, the sources on modern astrology are few indeed and pertain almost exclusively to scientific validity. The Carlson paper is the flagship article of the fleet, and it would violate WP:WEIGHT not to treat it, and the studies that corroborate it, in sufficient detail. As IRWolfie said, this reflects the relative proportion of coverage that astrology receives in the contempory scholarly literature. It reflects even more the coverage it receives in the reliable non-scholarly literature, as the validity question is of considerable interest to the general public, whereas historical details are of lesser general interest. A lot of the historical material can be delegated to subarticles as much of it is specific to particular traditions, and not to astrology as a whole. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Carlson experiment, it wasn't mentioned at all in the article until TippyGoomba put in a brief mention after I began the current discussion. But with that said, I agree that Carlson deserves prominent mention. However, mentioning that two astrologers volunteered to join the group which originally consisted of 26 is my idea of excessive detail. Regarding astrology in the modern period in the west, I'm quite aware that a strong majority of reliable sources consists of rebuttals by scientists and other academics, and this was already reflected in the article before IRWolfie bloated the science section. And there are indeed unnecessary specific details in the historical section as well -- the whole section currently reads like a grab-bag of random facts, instead of mentioning the major developments in astrology's repeated resurgence and decline (in the west, anyway) over the centuries. --Other Choices (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

astrology and divination

The lede was just changed to include a blanket statement associating astrology with divination. Is that supported by the preponderance of reliable sources? For example, the "Science and Astrology" article doesn't include the word "divination" once, but perhaps some of its sources do. Some modern western astrologers see their craft as a form of divination, but others don't. See Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), here.--Other Choices (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The only objections to "divination" I have seen have come from astrologers who consider it a science, or when they back pedal, a "academic" discipline like philosphy or religion. Those objections can be ignored. I have never seen a definition of astrology in a reliable sources that isn't synonomous with divination. It certainly isn't a "belief system" by any stretch of the imagination. What would your suggestion be? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, our article on divination makes a distinction between practices carried out as a reliagious ritual and practices such as astrology, which are not. Astrology and other forms of non-religious divination are treated in our article on Fortune telling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology can be used as a form of fortune-telling (at carnivals, etc.), but that doesn't mean that astrology is always (or usually) used in that fashion. Do the preponderance of reliable sources identify astrology with fortune-telling? Once again, Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation does NOT make such a connection. --Other Choices (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the article on Fortune-telling. The shoe definitely fits. Again, I have seen no description in reliable sources that conflict. Even when its used for shits-and-giggles entertainment, it is used as a form of fortune-telling. Personally, I prefer "divination", but unfortunately WP makes a distinction between divination and fortune-telling. If you prefer "divination", we could use that term but link to the article on fortune-telling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, to answer your earlier question, I would suggest restructuring the sentence in question. Not "Astrology is a xxxxx that yyyy." How about "Astrology refers to a set of traditions, in different cultures, based on the idea that there is a correspondence between human events and planetary movements (and other celestial phenomena)." That's off the top of my head; I'm sure there's room for improvement.

With your "shits-and-giggles" comment, your use of the word "even" seems to indicate that you misunderstood my earlier comment about fortune-telling in carnivals.

Fortune-telling is "the act or practice of predicting the future" according to dictionary.com, and that's a common-sense definition that disagrees with wikipedia's un-sourced definition of fortune-telling.

If the reliable sources don't equate astrology with fortune-telling, then I don't think that wikipedia should, either. Here's a relevant quote from the Evangeline Adams article: "Adams was arrested three times in New York for fortune telling, in 1911, 1914 and 1923.[8] Although practicing astrology was not legalized at that time, all the cases brought against her were unsuccessful, and the May 1914 trial brought particular notability due to the Judge's acquittal 'of all wrong doing' and praise of her skill, after she gave him an astrology reading describing the character of his son from his birth data." In other words, here is an example of a judge, in a criminal trial, drawing a distinction between astrology and fortune-telling. --Other Choices (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple more thoughts on using wikipedia's problematic, un-sourced definition of fortune-telling:

(1) "Wikipedia is not a usage guide," per WP:DICTIONARY.

(2) Fortune-telling is "the act or practise of predicting the future (especially for money)," per wiktionary

And based on that, I'm going to go try a BRD edit at the fortune-telling page.--Other Choices (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use Wiktionary as a source. Dictionaries in general are also poor resources for determining the meaning of complex phenomena. They aim at nothing more than a brief, ballpark description that is not always useful in discussions on scholarly topics. The court case you mentioned is also useless, as it is one man's non-scholarly opinion from almost a hundred years ago.

"Traditions" is pretty vague and non-informative. It basically says nothing.

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the "divination" vs. "fortune-telling" distinction either. I'd prefer to use the term "divination", but would have to link to the article on fortune-telling. You could try suggesting that the material on fortune-telling be merged into the article on divination, but I don't think you'd have much success. Much as I disagree with it myself, I sorta see the reasoning behind the distinction.

Let's see what other editors have to say. I've left a notice on FTN for input. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted the following at FTN, raising the question of how much astrology is reliably associated with divination and/or fortune-telling: From what I have seen, there is NOT a 1-to-1 correspondence. Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), discusses divination as one of several explanations of astrology. And Peter Whitfield's scholarly Astrology: A History has the following on page 8: "It would be easy to argue that its motive was simply the desire to see into the future, but astrology has always made intellectual claims which were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing."

And Whitfield on page 128 states that during the Renaissance "astrology was not merely a system of divination, but had widened into a system of beliefs about cosmology, natural events, health and disease, destiny and death."

--Other Choices (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, any attempt to limit the lede's definition of astrology to either divination or fortune-telling, without citing reliable sources, is nothing more than POV.

I'll suggest the following replacement sentence, which draws on Whitfield, page 7: Astrology comprises several technical and mathematical systems based on the premise that there is a relationship between celestial phenomena and events in the human world.

--Other Choices (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Recent edits changed the first sentence of the lead from #1 to #2:

1. Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.
2. Astrology comprises several systems of fortune-telling based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world.

Obviously astrology is based on human attempts to make sense of the world by looking for patterns that might explain events that have occurred, or that might provide guidance for what will occur. But I don't see a need to reduce that to "fortune-telling"—that definition would break with even one counter example, and I imagine that somewhere someone has proclaimed that a certain event last week was due to the position of the planets. If a source is available, it might make sense for the article (perhaps not the lead) to state that astrology is most often used for fortune-telling. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is fair, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sentence, a ways down in the article, which says that "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky." Maybe this is a good starting point, maybe even a good starting sentence, and then going on into the specifics, including a mention of fortune telling. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the "Astrology, in its broadest sense, is the search for meaning in the sky" sentence, firstly the definition overlaps partly with astronomy, and secondly it misses the most general point in all astrology which is "as above, so below", IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it back to divination. As I said above, I'm not personally in favor of the word "fortune-telling" and the distinction made between the diviantion and fortune-telling articles, and think they should be merged. As far as Campion's "search for meaning in the sky" definition, it's so broad and vague that it's basically useless. There is also the problem of distinguishing astrology from astronomy that has to be taken into account. A good account is here: [[2]], page 14, Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus for "divination," so I changed it to "technical and mathematical systems, per Whitfield, p. 7.--Other Choices (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there's an ongoing discussion about this question at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard here.

--Other Choices (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is even worse. What was wrong with the original "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between ..." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's really not a "belief system" per se, although it can be an element of various belief systems, or operate completely independently of any belief system. Also, having a hard time finding reliable sources that describe it as such. at least in a modern context. It was introduced to replace "divination" by the now mostly banned astrology clique that controlled this article a couple of years ago. As for Other Choice's definition, he's quibbling on the word "astrology". Astrology used to mean astrology (divination) and astronomy together, and is still sometimes used that way by scholars when discussing ancient practices. However, the usual modern use of the word "astrology" excludes scientific astronomy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that astrology isn't really a belief system, but we should go back to the last stable version until there's consensus to change the lede.

@IRWolfie, could you please explain why you don't like my version? "Several technical and mathematical systems" paraphrases the very first paragraph in Whitfield's history (page 7), which introduces the idea "that man is somehow related, organically linked, to the universe around him....The most distinctive feature of this idea is that it was not employed to found a philosophy in the usual sense, but that it became the starting-point of a system, which was technical, mathematical and, in the context of its time, scientific." Whitfield only treats western astrology in his book, so he uses the singular "system" instead of "several systems." Do you think that's a problem? If not, could you please explain your objection?

@Dominus Vobisdu, your last statement misrepresents what I'm saying, as you avoid discussing the two reliable sources that I have quoted both here and at FTN. To re-state my point yet again: Two separate reliable sources show disagreement with your blanket association of astrology with divination. As I asked at the beginning of this section, does the preponderance of reliable sources define astrology in terms of divination. You are welcome to demonstrate that this is the case, but you have not done so.--Other Choices (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't describe astrology in any meaningful sense for a lead. That astrology is technical is not the defining feature. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia britanica, a WP:TERTIARY source calls it divination, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The only sources that I can find that refer to astrology as anything but divination either are A) unreliable fringe sources or discussing usage by them; or B) refering to the special historical use as "astrology + astronomy" (like Whitefield). While not all sources use the exact word divination, they are all essentially consistent with the meaning of the word, or use synonmous terms like "fortune-telling" or "prognostication". Absent any compelling reason to search for reliable sources with a broader definition, I have to conclude that "divination" is indeed the best term. EB's usage seals the deal for me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, your opinion about the defining feature(s) of astrology appears to be original research. Whitfield defines astrology with three defining features -- technical, mathematical, and based on the premise of a correlation between celestial phenomena and human activity. Could you please explain your personal opinion that "technical" is not a defining feature of astrology?

@Dominus Vobisdu, if wikipedia editors dismiss a reliable source because it discusses usage by sources that are not "reliable" by wikipedia's standards, that is a clear case of original research. If you believe that Brockbank's summary of various explanations of astrology (some of which include divination, and some of which don't) is inappropriate for a wikipedia article, could you please explain why?

You associate Whitfield with "special historical use" of 'astrology + astronomy.' This is simply wrong; it appears that you haven't actually read Whitfield. You continue to ignore the quotes from Whitfield that I've provided; it appears that you are trying to avoid engaging with the content of this reliable source that you've already described as "on a par with the Britanica article."

Furthermore, you have not provided a single reliable secondary source that defines astrology in terms of divination. I request that you do so. I have already provided two secondary sources to rebut your definition of astrology in terms of divination. I now add a third: Zarka's "scientific" evaluation of astrology here makes no mention of divination in its introductory definition, and Zarka specifically states that the basic postulate of astrology is "not a priori supernatural." Divination, of course, is "the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown by supernatural means," per the Oxford English Dictionary.

--Other Choices (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources don't mention it. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says its divination, thats good enough for us. I don't know why you would expect Zarka to have a nice snappy definition of astrology, so the absence is hardly meaningful. It's precisely when there is a lack of clarity in the secondary sources that one turns to the tertiary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's just the one's that contain a direct definition and use the exact word "divination". Plenty more that use synonymns, or are essentially the same as divination. And plenty more articles that, while they don't give a definition, treat astrology as divination and discuss it using that word:

Astrology is one of the most ancient and complex forms of divination Astrological counseling in contemporary India JF Pugh - Culture, medicine and psychiatry, 1983 - Springer

... in every system of divination including astrology Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi? G Dean, IW Kelly - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2003

Eventually astrology came to dominate all other forms of divination A survey of the attitudes of university students to astrology and astronomy MM De Robertis, PA Delaney - Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 87, NO. 1/FEB, P. 34, 1993

astrology is an attempt to convert certain parts of this information into a kind of divination, to predict the characteristics, behavior, or fortunes of human beings Brues, A. M. (1993), The Objective View of Race. NAPA Bulletin, 13: 74–78

astrology is neither a science nor an art but rather a system of magic divination based on ancient superstitions and the principle of correspondences. LE Jerome - Leonardo, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, 1973, MIT Press

The debate surrounding divination in general, and astrology in particular L Racaut - A Protestant or Catholic superstition? Astrology and eschatology during the French Wars of Religion, in Religion and superstition in Reformation Europe. Manchester University Press. 2002.

In summary, astrology is an ancient form of divination that has changed little since its founding on superstition and ignorance nearly four thousand years ago. S Carlson - Astrology, Experientia, 15 April 1988, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 290-297

Astromancy (or astrology) is divining from the stars T Buchan - Stranger in a strange land, Zambezia, 1980, VIII

astrology and other forms of divination G Sarton - Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, 1954.

There are many methodologies of divination. ... Astrology is the most frequently employed methodology in highly literate cultures. G Van Rheenen - Animistic and Western Perspectives of illness and Healing, International Journal of Frontier Missions, 1998

and my favorite:

Astrology has experienced no change from Kepler's time. It is still an art of divination, based on groundless, arbitrary and unprecise rules and on embarrassingly loutish mathematics. Marek Artur Abramowicz - Astronomy at the frontiers of Science Integrated Science & Technology Program Volume 1, 2011, pp 285-307

I could go on and on, and list the sources that use synonyms like fortune-telling, prognostication, soothsaying, and so on. Nothing, absolutely nothing, supporting Whitfield's claim. In Fact, several of the sources listed above directly contradict it. Even Brockbank describes it as divination using that exact word. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you've made your case quite satisfactorily.--Other Choices (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Much broader than how I would define "divination", but perhaps astrology could indeed be treated as nothing more than an elaborate form of divination, based on similar principles. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)