Talk:Astrology and astronomy

Problem with premise of this article

"The two completely separate disciplines as we define them today cannot, in fact, be distinguished, until only the past few hundred years (they split up completely about 1750-1800)."

The premise of this article is not correct, and can be disproven merely with a few examples of how astronomy and astrology were distinguished in ancient thought beginning with Plato, who was aware of Babylonian use of planets and stars for prediction, but who was interested in astronomy as a method of comtemplating cosmic harmony (which is not the same thing as making predictions about persons from a horoscope).

By starting with a broad sweep of history and generalizations rather than clear definitions of astrology and astronomy, the article is misleading and inaccurate. This does not mean that astronomy wasn't used primarily in the service of astrology (which it was) or that an astronomer could not also be an astrologer (many were, but many were not). Non-astrologer astronomers included: Eudoxus, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Heraclides, Aristarchus, Geminus, Scylax (friend of Posidonius). The skeptics and opponents of astrology (such as the Cappadocians) were quick to point out the difference between astrology and astronomy.

I recommend that this article be flagged for rewrite.

--Zeusnoos 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain revert

Marskell, could you please provide an explanation for your revert other than 'sigh'? Aquirata 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed matter of fact information. That's what requires explaining. Marskell 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts were not simply presented but used in an argumentative manner, which is not justified when you are writing a largely historical article about bodies of knowledge. The article is not about the validity of astronomy vs astrology. That can be argued on the Objective validity of astrology page.

As a matter of fact, astrology is an academic department in some universities, so that's not a distinguishing feature. Why mention it? The wording of the third sentence (Astrology... is regarded as a pseudoscience by some and a wrongly maligned discipline by others) is highly POV and should be changed.

Again, you are trying to make an argument for astronomy and against astrology, where none is called for. Aquirata 13:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely where your assertions on the NPOV page are in error. You want to give the two sentences equal weight and "equal sympathy" where it is not warranted and no policy demands it. Astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience by some. That is a fact. Astronomy is not seriously challenged as an academic discipline. This contrast is central to the distinction between them. I can live with a tweak in diction ("wrongly maligned" sounds odd). Marskell 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please propose a wording that you'd be happy with. Aquirata 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my adding few comments here. I agree with Marskell that the previous edit gives both the appearance of equal weight, and the new one adds useful information. However, I agree with Aquirata that adding that astronomy is studied in academic departments is not appropriate, but for a very different reason. Aren't all sciences studied in academic depts? But many things are studied in academic depts. which are as reputable as science, so it doesn't really add any weight to science's reputation, and therefore unnecessary. Aquirata, I think you need to back up what you mean by saying astrology is an academic dept in some universities. Kepler is an institution for training astrologers, not for bringing something as interesting as the history of astrology to a broader academic environment. Astrology is taught at California Institute of Integral Studies (Rick Tarnas), but this is not a dept. itself, and the institute itself is not considered mainstream academia, although it is strong for those who want a career in liberal political and social activism. I think there are a few profs. in psychology depts who teach about astrology, but not as its own dept.

In the UK, there was the Bath Spa cultural astronomy and astrology, which was a part of the School of Historical and Cultural Studies - not a separate dept. This program was recently pulled, but I can't say whether or not there was fair reason for it. The most solid program for academically examining astrology at this time appears to be University of Kent since they cross disciplines and are interested in astrology as a cultural phenomenon from the perspectives of anthropology, philosophy, history, and classical studies.

Let's keep in mind, there is a big difference between studying astrology as a cultural or historical phenomenon and studying astrology in order to practice it. Zeusnoos 13:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points, agreed. Thanks for all the detail. Aquirata 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Any proposals on how to reword the introductory sentences? I have suggested mine, and that was reverted. I don't see any new ideas forthcoming. Aquirata 10:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the whole article is poorly written. I would rewrite the opening as something like the following:

"In the modern Western world, astrology and astronomy are generally regarded as completely separate disciplines. Astronomy, the study of objects and phenomena beyond the Earth's atmosphere, is accepted as a science and is a widely studied academic discipline. Astrology, which uses the apparent positions of celestial objects as the basis for psychology, prediction of future events, and other esoteric knowledge, is regarded as a pseudoscience by some and a wrongly maligned discipline by others. (See Objective validity of astrology for more information.) Historically, many cultures have not made a clear distinction between the two disciplines, and many astronomical calculations and observations were conducting for the purposes of astrological divination and religious ritual. In ancient Babylonia, famed for its astrology, there were not separate roles for the astronomer as predictor of celestial phenomena, and the astrologer as interpreter; both functions were performed by the same person, the priest.

"This overlap does not mean that astrology and astronomy were always regarded as one and the same. In ancient Greece, preSocratic thinkers such as Anaximander, Xenophanes, Anaximenes, and Heraclides speculated about the nature and substance of the stars and planets. Astronomers such as Eudoxus (contemporary with Plato) observed planetary motions and cycles, and created a geocentric cosmological model that would be accepted by Aristotle and would last until Ptolemy, who added epicycles to explain certain motions. The Platonic school promoted the study of astronomy as a part of philosophy because the motions of the heavens demonstrated an orderly and harmonious cosmos. In the 3rd century B.C.E., Babylonian astrology began to make its presence felt in Greece. It was criticized by Hellenistic philosophers such as the Academic Skeptic Carneades and Middle Stoic Panaetius. However, the notions of the Great Year (when all the planets complete a full cycle and return to their relative positions) and eternal recurrence were Stoic doctrines that made divination and fatalism possible.

"While the Greek words astrologia and astronomia were often used interchangeably, they were conceptually not the same. Both words more often than not referred to astronomy. The words for astrology proper, were more typically apotelesma and katarkhe^.

"Astrology was widely accepted in the Middle Ages as astrological texts from Hellenistic and Arabic astrologers were translated into Latin. In the late Middle Ages, its acceptance or rejection often depended on its reception in the royal courts of Europe. Not until the time of Francis Bacon was astrology rejected as a part of scholastic metaphysics rather than empirical observation.

"A definitive split between astrology and astronomy the West took place gradually in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when astrology was increasingly thought of as an occult science or superstition by the intellectual elite. Because many people mistakenly think that astrology is some kind of science, it sometimes happens that the two are confused with one another even today. Many contemporary astrologers, however, do not claim that astrology is a science, but think of it as a form of divination like the I-Ching, an art, or a part of a spiritual belief structure (influenced by trends such as Neoplatonism, Neopaganism, Theosophy, and Hinduism)."

It may be nice to reference some specific cultures (there are many) where astronomy was used in the service of both religious worship and electional astrology, but I'm not an expert in these areas.

While the whole objective validity of astrology debate is interesting, I doubt most astrologers think astrology is a science. Maybe I'm generalizing from the ones I know. Am I wrong? Zeusnoos 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good overview notwithstanding the NPOV issue with the third sentence (which is currently being discussed). The statements will obviously have to be properly sourced, so there is still some work to be done. One detail I would add is specific examples of astrologers through-out the ages to further highlight how the split took place (which I believe happened more in the 16th-17th centuries rather than the 17th-18th). A good reference for this is http://www.mountainastrologer.com/scofield.html.

My impression agrees with yours regarding astrologers in general, but I do not have a reliable source to back this up. As can be deduced from research activity through-out the past century or so, interest in coming up with some kind of objective proof peaked during perhaps the 70s and 80s but since has died down. This may be due to the sheer number of negative findings, which may also be the reason for the recent re-emergence of astrology as divination (mostly championed by Cornelius, but there are many others). This of course may be viewed as a cop-out, but we will only know for sure in hindsight. Astrologers delving deep into the Mars effect and similar research claim that the proof for objective validity already exists; it is also apparent, however, that skeptic scientists interested in the subject disagree; and the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community rejects astrology a priori (without bothering to look into the evidence, i.e. on a 'pseudo-scientific' basis, to use their own terminology, which brings up some interesting philosophical questions).

Please fill me in on what specific the issue is with this sentence: "Astrology, which uses the apparent positions of celestial objects as the basis for psychology, prediction of future events, and other esoteric knowledge, is regarded as a pseudoscience by some and a wrongly maligned discipline by others." I don't have a problem with 'regarded a pseudoscience by some and a wrongly maligned discipline by others.' It is regarded as a pseudoscience, a term coined within phil. of science. Maybe it would be better to specify who 'some' and 'others' are, but if we fill in with 'scientists' and 'astrologers' we're taking a generalized guess that doesn't cover everyone else. Zeusnoos 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the presentation is judgmental: one gets the feeling after reading the introductory sentences that astronomy is legitimate and astrology is illegitimate. This is not what the intro should be about; it should simply highlight the distinguishing features without getting into mudslinging.

This was my suggested reword: Astronomy is the study of objects and phenomena beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Astrology, on the other hand, interprets the apparent positions of celestial objects as they relate to earthly events, using symbolic language. I have no problem putting in [astronomy] is a widely studied academic discipline in the first sentence, but even accepted as a science, factual as it may be, is problematical because it is implying superiority. Aquirata 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

More accurately, the former is presented as legitimate and the latter is presented as contested. This is factual presentation. It is not incumbent upon us to treat them the same way. Marskell 11:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even more accurately, the former is presented as legitimate by the scientific community and the latter is presented as contested by the scientific community. This, by definition, is POV presentation. Aquirata 12:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Science vs. pseudoscience

I have removed the science vs. pseudoscience argument from the introductory sentences. The basis for this is WP:WTA, 5 Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. I quote:

"A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which none the less are almost always applied by 'outsiders' in some sphere, to 'insiders'. For example:

• 'Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific approach to healing'"

I believe this change to be supporting WP:NPOV. Look forward to your arguments rather than reverts. Aquirata 10:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is widely regarded as a pseudoscience. Fact.

Astronomy is widely regarded as a science. Fact.

You await the arguments but you've received them thrice (on this page alone). However, if it is literally the prefix "pseudo" that bothers you, you'll note I didn't use it in the last edit. Marskell 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your statements cannot be assumed true unless you can supply references. I also suggest you read WP:WTA. Aquirata 11:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Added fact flags as per above comment. No, the term pseudoscience doesn't bother me, it is simply POV as per WP:WTA. Aquirata 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WTA is a style guide and does not function as policy (which doesn't mean its not useful). I can only assume you're joking when you tell me I should look for sources to prove astronomy is widely regarded as a science (will Brittanica do?). As for astrology and pseudoscience we have plenty of sources on the other pages as you well now. I can live with other wording ("is presented as a form of divination" say) but that it is not considered a science, to repeat, is crucial to the distinction between and should remain. Marskell 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Any statement of fact must be sourced. Failing that, they can only be presented as an opinion or view. I have no problem with presenting one as science and the other as something else; the objection concerned legitimacy vs. illegitimacy, which is POV presentation. Aquirata 12:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the science vs. divination assertions are now heavily sourced, thanks for that. I would think, however, that one reputable source will do for each. Also, sprinkling the article with references that are hostile to astrology is not serving our NPOV interests here. In that respect, I strongly feel that the Britannica references are the only acceptable ones and the rest of them should go. Aquirata 12:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for astrology vs. astronomy confusion

Changed this sentence to remove faulty and POV reasoning in accordance with WP:WTA. The wordage mistakenly think that astrology is some kind of science implies that astrology is, in reality, a pseudoscience. This is simply a scientific point of view (POV). Moreover, the confusion doesn't arise because of that but because of their long-standing association (i.e. common history). I believe this change to be factual and supporting WP:NPOV. Look forward to your arguments rather than reverts. Aquirata 11:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, do you believe astrology is a science? And what do you think the defining characteristics of a science is? And BTW, if one compared two types consecutive kings in a history article, would you say that claiming one increased trade and the other slaughtered millions was POV'ing if heading a section as a comparison? (assuming that both facts are well-established). Lundse 12:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that astrology, as we understand it today, is a science. That it was considered science for a long time, is a historical fact. As for your example, much depends on wording. Facts must be presented as neutrally as possible. So, in a highly POV manner, I could say that the greedy bastard King I increased trade on the back of his people, and that King II made sure that his people would have sufficient resources to support themselves and he was forced to defend his kingdom against millions of vicious people. Or I could say that the benevolent King I sacrificed his own well-being in order to increase trade so that his people can have a better life, while King II ruthlessly murdered millions of people and enjoyed doing it at the same time. Both are bad presentations. Aquirata 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly could say all those things - but could you also state them both in an NPOV way? If you can, then certainly you can also so for astrology with it being POV in itself to mention the fact itself.

BTW, your said The point here is to compare the two disciplines in another section. If that is the case, why not mention that one is a science and the other is not?

Like I said, I don't have a problem with saying that astronomy is a science and astrology is something else. The problem is when a comparison is made from a point of view. For example: "Astrology is considered useful by many people while nobody understands astronomy apart from the scientific elite." This may not be too far from the truth but is not a balanced statement. Aquirata 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you do not have a problem with saying that astrology is not a science? Then what the h... is the problem? Having them in the same sentence? Comparing them? Isn't that what the article is about? Of course they should be compared (also in their own articles) on this point as it is the major difference and one which has people confused.

And the problem with your example statement is that people do understand astronomy, since almost everyone knows that things are moving around in space according to certain, immutable laws - this is a huge step forward in knowledge and one which was not made when astrology was invented. Lundse 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Added details to introduction

I added some of my suggested changes to the introduction without touching the opening paragraph (I'll let you duke it out). Some of this material may be incorporated into the body, which currently has some inaccurate generalizations. A rewrite should include something about which branches of astrology were accepted in the early modern period (even by hardnose Hobbes!) and which were rejected (and maybe include reasons why). I mean judicial vs natural astrology. Natural astrology included phases of the moon and affects of cycles of the sun. Judicial was casting horoscopes and making predictions about nations and individuals. Horary was revived in the 17th century (particularly by William Lilly). Patrick Curry wrote an excellent book on this period of history (Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England) and another good source is Ann Geneva's work Astrology and the Seventeenth Century Mind (St. Martin's Press, 1996 or 7?). She focused much on the political intrigues involving Lilly and his rivals.

As it stands the definitive split of 1750-1800 is not wrong, but too generalized and gives the impression that astrology and astronomy were considered one and the same up to this time. This is generally untrue if you study the details Zeusnoos 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the split started much earlier than the 18th century. One could say that Copernicus was the forerunner of what transpired in later centuries. Aquirata 12:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

POV in lead?

Astrology and astronomy "are" historically one and the same, or were  historically one and the same? Bwrs (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

To be honest any useful info in this article should be in history of astronomy or history of astrology. This article seems to overlap with these and only confuse the issue. Currently astronomy and astrology are very widely separated fields : ) so the title of this article is liable to confuse readers. Sophia 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to compare the two disciplines. Two separate articles cannot do that. Aquirata 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it will be a short article! Modern astrology is pseudoscience and astronomy is science. In the past they were linked and this should be mentioned in the histories of each subject but there is nothing currently to compare. Sophia 12:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sophia, if you have the time to check, see what if any info would be lost (is there anything stated in here that doesn't get mentioned in the "history of" articles?). With that taken care of it can be merged. Sub-articles are meant for specific things main articles cannot handle. Marskell 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge unless someone can show that a lot of material would get lost. And I do believe two articles can contrast with one another by a small section or paragraph (in many cases). It will have to be shown why this is not so for this subject matter (preferably with reference to some interesting material in this article which there would not be room for in the two others). Lundse 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to compare the two disciplines. Two separate articles cannot do that. Aquirata 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The public get them mixed up sometimes as they can't spell - that's the only modern comparison there is. Do we need a whole article for that? We wouldn't compare reflexology or reiki with astronomy so why this? Sophia 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion is conceptual rather than a misspelling. As it stands, the historical divergence section is repetitious and poorly organized. If cleaned up, I agree that this article should stay, but as a brief, separate topic just to outline historically the interaction of astronomy and astrology, and some of the reasons for the confusion of the two historically and today. On the other hand, some of the material could be fit in the history of astrology, to perhaps replace the statement: "Isidore of Seville (d. 636) was one of the first to distinguish between astronomy and astrology." The distinction was made by many before this time as I have shown in the revised intro to astronomy/astrology. Making such a distinction doesn't mean later or contemporary people followed it. The history of astronomy article currently has the link in the first paragraph, but nothing about how the two are confused. On another astrology talk page, someone recently mentioned this article www.iep.utm.edu/a/astr-hel.htm which contains some mention of Greek astronomers who were not astrologers and were critical of it, as were a number of philosophers. The history is very nuanced. Zeusnoos 14:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing a google of "astronomy and astrology" returns lots of hits but they mostly seem to be sites that are very biased one way or the other. [1][2][3][4]. I still contend that the only NPOV way to deal with this is in the history articles of each subject. Sophia 15:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's still not forget that astronomy comes from astrology, it iss an important point we have to keep in whichever articles will talk about it. → Icez {talk | contrib} 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Article title

In order to create some clarity on the difference between the articles Astronomy, Astrology, History of astronomy, History of astrology and this one, instead of the inconclusive merge proposal, I propose to change the name of this article to something like Common origins of astronomy and astrology or Divergence of astronomy and astrology. Nick Mks 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. --Chris Brennan 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support Historical divergence of Astronomy and Astrology as a complementary article to History of astrology and History of Astronomy. Sophia 11:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I support more the Common origins of astronomy and astrology, however I'm perfectly fine with the other one. → Icez {talk | contrib} 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep a short title which describes the main theme . -Vinay Jha 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange article

What's next, Alchemy and chemistry? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - but you make a very valid analogy - thank you. Sophia 06:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

top of article

What's up with the top of the article here? There has to be a way to get the infobox alongside the text. >-{ Brandonrush }-< —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing characteristics

This article has determinism as a defining characteristic of astrology, whereas astronomy acknowledges both order and chance. I think the latter is far from a necessary viewpoint. Laplace, for example:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

Theat's determinism pur et dur, and Laplace was an astronomer and not an astrologer.

Also for what it's worth, I question that astrologers are necessarily 100% determinist, but that's IMHO, and I didn't do any research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

=

This whole section is misleading and factually incorrect. For example

1. Astrologers practice their discipline geocentrically [12] and they consider[citation needed] the universe to be harmonious, changeless and static, while astronomers have employed the scientific method to infer that the universe is without a center and is dynamic, expanding outward.[13]

This should be # Most astrologers practice their discipline geocentrically and they consider the universe to be meaningful and teleological. Astronomers have employed the scientific method to infer that the universe is neither meaningful, nor goal-directed, but subject to the purely mechanical laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

There are a minority of astrologers who practice heliocentric astrology. Moreover, astrologers today do not consider the universe to be changeless and static, nor did they ever. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed that the sphere of the Fixed Stars was a firmament and in that sense changeless, and his views prevailed and were dominant in science thanks largely to Ptolemy (anyone could see that the planets moved, that's the original meaning of the word "planet"). Almost all thinkers believed this until well after the discoveries of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler. Astrologers today are just as well versed in the scientific view of the solar system and the universe as anyone else, and more so than most.

1. Astrologers believe that the position of the stars and planets determine an individual's personality and future.

Most Western Astrologers do not take a deterministic view. The word "determine" should be changed to "influence" if this sentence is retained. Many if not most astrologers would hold that the celestial world is a map or guide to the course of events and the structure of personality, rather than a cause, so neither "determine" nor "influence" is appropriate to them.

1. Astronomers study the actual stars and planets, but have found no evidence supporting astrological theories.

This suggests that astrologers do not study "actual" stars and planets. If so, what do they study? The word "actual" is POV and should be removed. Some astronomers understand astrology, just as most astrologers understand astronomy, or at least the parts of it that do not require PhD's in astrophysics. I would like to know which "astrological theories" there are "no evidence" for.

1. Psychologists study personality, and while there are many theories of personality, no mainstream theories in that field are based on astrology.

A number of theories of temperament in particular are based on the Elements, the knowledge of which comes originally from astrology. Jung was strongly influenced by astrology in his views, as was Steiner. No doubt there are others, but I am not an expert in the field of competing psychological theories. Mainstream should be defined and examples given. This is not NPOV either. Alvahir (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is OK

As of 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC) the article seems to look nice and factually pretty accurate, NPOV and such. I think that the use of the Template:Totally-disputed is not motivated any more. Some facts could be clarified, such as for example that the zoodiac of astrology are 30° sectors from vernal equinox, and has nothing to do with stars, but the astronomers zoodiac is simply a list of constellations, but that doesn't deserve Template:Totally-disputed. Shouldn't we consider reconciling with the state of the article? Facts are facts: the astronomers of old earned money by erecting horoscopes and doing divinations, although Kepler objected against using the house system. Gradually the economical and philosophical conditions became such that astronomy and astrology could separate, the philosophical conditions (emerging science, rationalism, positivism) providing the inner source for separation, the economical conditions providing the outer means of separation. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting myself a little: the article did it's best (before some modifications of mine), but some anti-astrology tendencies hadn't been cleaned away, and list of differences hadn't a quite clear grip about what motivates astrology nor astronomy. Astrology isn't that deterministic, astronomy doesn't preach anything – it's not a religion – it's a genre under the science umbrella, strictly obeying the rules of science, which prohibits using religion and mysticism in scientific articles. I still think that Template:Totally-disputed can be removed. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Another historical divergence

The current one is:

1. confusing,
2. seems to allege some kind of predetermination: "the astronomy was predetermined to become liberated from the evil ;^) yoke of astrology",

Which is in disaccord with the general modern scientific rejection of predetermination ;^). I think that section partially already tell us the truth: someone had to pay the astronomers/astrologers, either some rich guy needing horoscopes for his personal spiritual ease, or some rich guy very interested in navigation. Galileo was an observational astronomer, and didn't contribute to the celestial mechanics at all. The three greatest contributors are:

1. Kepler, who was a mystic directed towards pythagorean ideals and a devoted astrologer,
2. Newton, who was kind of an early "rationalist", of the renaissance kind, probably not an astrologer but probably a devoted christian,
3. Einstein, who was an early 20th century strict scientist having a deterministic religious view, maybe of the Spinoza kind, most probably not an astrologer.

I think that celestial mechanics and heliocentrism has nothing to do with the separation, I think rationalism and positivism are the main driving forces behind the separation, especially modern physics, concentrating on atom theory and the four forces of nature. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting myself: Newton was a religious man, thought not what is ordinarily regarded as christian. He is not a Spinoza kind'a'guy, but his own. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And the printing press was "invented" in 1439. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten

Historical divergence have been rewritten, readers are welcome to criticise and improve, but foremost I wished to remove the reason for the rewriting request on that section, so if You deem the section to be acceptable, and foremost: neutral in point of view, I would like You to delete the template, if it is justified. ("You" equals "any passerby"). Said: Rursus ☻ 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrology and astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://archive.is/Sfvw to http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Astrology and astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007224627/http://library.thinkquest.org/5014/glossary.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/5014/glossary.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html
• Removed the dead link and added a correct link https://joshiastrology.com/astrology-and-horoscope-readings/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002082033/http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/public_offerings/features/Levels%20of%20Reality%20in%20Astrology.htm to http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/public_offerings/features/Levels%20of%20Reality%20in%20Astrology.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neo7227 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ohuqq (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ohuqq (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)