Jump to content

Talk:Astrology/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

First things first

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

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

The astrological literature is filled largely with demonstrations of belief. What it is not filled with are demonstrations of truth. The result is chaos. If truth is to replace belief, research is essential. This requires a critical review of the literature. Hence this book.
In this book 'astrology' means the study of correlations between living organisms (especially man) and extraterrestrial phenomena. It does not mean Lucky Stars or similar absurdities masquerading under the same name. Astrology has been a respectable subject for millenia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal.

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

(1) Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
(2) Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree.
(3) Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.

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

And both the 'spirit' and the 'rules' of Wikipedia say the same thing - we reflect the opinions of reliable sources. They overwhelmingly state that astrology is pseudoscience. So we say the same thing. Case closed. AndyTheGrump (talk)
AndyTheGrump, the problem with your assertion is that neither you nor the other sceptical editors have been willing to share a single citation which demonstrates that astrology "is" a pseudoscience. Why not? Could it be it is because the statement is ultimately only a belief of the editors as well as the scientific community? I think so. The book Petersburg cites suggests chaos surrounding astrology at the time of writing in 1977. The authoritarian statment of the 186 scientists against astrology in 1975 sent shockwaves around the world of astrology. Since then, important research developments include further proof of the Mars effect and a reversal of Carlson's conclusions from being against astrology to being in favour of astrology. The refusal of scientists to consider this research suggests Dr. Ertel's claim of pseudo-rationality in the scientific community has merit. The case of astrology as a field meriting research based on scientific methods is wide open. Both the views of those sceptical of astrology and those favouring it need to be heard in this article. Erekint (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Shock waves or not, the Humanist is a reliable source and the scientists signing the declaration were reputable enough. If this is the best source to indicate scientific opinion on astrology then that's what we should use.Petersburg (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
  23. [23]
  24. [24]
  25. [25]

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

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]
  6. [31]
  7. [32]
  8. [33]
  9. [34]
  10. [35]
Ten from google scholar. Yeah, it's pretty clear that it's not merely a small number of editors who consider astrology to be pseudoscience. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, I don’t think anyone disputes that there are plenty of individual claims like Skeptics Dictionary etc. that astrology is a pseudoscience. However, individual opinions don’t make it so. The claim is about the scientific community rather than the sceptical community and in doing this we seem to be heading towards three rational fallacies here.
Any claim about the current views of the scientific community on astrology without a measured opinion from a verified source is obviously an appeal to anonymous authority like the cliché loved by journalists ‘Scientists say …’
Moreover this measured opinion can only include scientists who have studied the subject and looked into current research. Unless someone can provide evidence that a majority of scientists investigate astrology, an unqualified claim will be largely based on uninformed opinion (whether favourable to astrology or not) and will contain prejudice. Unless it is clarified that this is a belief or is in some way qualified that it is not based on expertise, any stronger statement on the Wikipedia Astrology page would be misleading to anyone wishing to find out facts about astrology. It would be like a false advertising claim that alleges scientific support for a medical product when it is not based on research. Essentially it would be an appeal to false authority.
As an astrologer, people sometimes tell me that astrology is popular therefore it must be true. I always correct that fallacy (Argumentum ad populum). However, I think we are in danger of promoting a form of it which is argument by consensus. Scientists may be critical thinkers in their specialist field, but as a group they are not immune from communal reinforcement and groupthink. Astrologers, sceptics, creationists, communists etc are equally vulnerable as a group.
Since it has been roundly shown that there are no longer grounds for the pseudoscience claim, but since many of you editors feel bound by the letter of Wikipedia rules/policy to include it, how do you propose it can be honestly acknowledged even from a sceptical point of view? Robertcurrey (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You keep acting as if wikipedia is out to prove whether astrology is true or not. We don't. All we do is verify that it's considered pseudoscience. It is. You have made the same error with your list of sources above - because you believe X source validates your personal belief in astrology despite never mentioning the word, you think it can be used on wikipedia. It can not. We can only use reliable sources that explicitly discuss astrology, not sources you think are relevant. We don't sort the wheat from the chaff to come up with an overall conclusion - that is original research and forbidden. We cite what the best sources have to say to represent the scholarly community's opinion, using both the number and type of sources to inform our articles. This is neutrality. And the neutral description of astrology is that it is pseudoscience. It doesn't matter if scientists are wrong, it matters if they think astrology is pseudoscience. They do. Textbook pseudoscience (literally - some of what I link to above are actual textbooks).
And just for fun, I'll point out that there are 35 sources that explicitly state, with no qualification, that astrology is pseudoscience. Focusing on one ignores the rest.
Final point - it has not been roundly shown that astrology is a real science. Your efforts above are extremely unconvincing and can not be integrated with the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not made any claim that astrology is a science. Robertcurrey (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU makes a good point: for Wikipedia's purposes it is irrelevant whether astrology is actually a science or a pseudoscience. What matters is what scientists think. Now, if it can be shown that the majority of scientists believe that astrology is pseudoscience, then all we need is one significant or a few relevant citations that can back up that statement. Quoting dozens of sources doesn't achieve that objective (this is not a popularity contest); we need to identify the sources that drive home that statement (therefore it cannot be from a single author unless a survey is cited). At the same time, it needs to be shown what practitioners of astrology think what astrology is in order to present a balanced picture. I think the Humanist declaration would be a good source for the scientists' view but I'd be happy to accept something even better. Are there any such source for the astrological community?Petersburg (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What would you suggest we do aside from citing sources? Particularly given astrology is clearly considered pseudoscience and is used as a textbook example of pseudoscience? We don't need a survey (though it would be helpful), we merely need a sampling of the sources I have already cited since there are no credible sources claiming it is not. Though we can briefly summarize what "professional" astrologers claim they can do, we can not suggest they actually deliver. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, I checked the first 6 of your references, and only one is deserving of mention from quality of content perspective (Philosophy of science and the occult). The other five are full of the typical pseudo-scientific falsities that skeptics love to flog, such as, the sun spends an unequal amount of time in the constellations and that they actually 'fluctuate' (i.e. precession of equinoxes), no known mechanism, it doesn't work, it's stagnant, etc, etc. I will check your other references in time but you'll have to do better than this to gain any credibility with subject matter experts.Aquirata (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We're looking at sources to support the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience, but you want to discount sources that go on to point out flaws in astrology or say "it doesn't work" or "no known mechanism" etc? That seems like a highly irrational way of dealing with the available evidence. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely, Bobrayner. The sources are such low quality, they are not worthy of citation. They do not point out any flaws in astrology, but numerous flaws are apparent in their arguments. They demonstrate how uninformed the authors are about the current state of astrology by simply repeating fallacious and ridiculous (one could say, pseudo-scientific) arguments that have been refuted several decades ago. I'm talking about the five sources that I checked, so this is not a generalization. Aquirata (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The books are extraordinarily mainstream. Having a reference in a textbook is essentially the best way to demonstrate it is a mainstream belief. The fact that these sources state flatly and unequivocally that astrology is pseudoscience - in fact hold it up as an uncontroversial example of pseudoscience that doesn't need justification or discussion is a clear indication of the mainstream viewpoint. Again, the purpose of wikipedia is to document in a neutral manner the mainstream opinion through verification using sources. The purpose of wikipedia is not to debate whether astrology is considered pseudoscience or "works" through extensive original research. Astrologers can believe what they want, but scientists quite clearly think astrology is nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This debate has evolved. It began with the assertion of a few sceptics that "astrology is a pseudoscience" and the insertion of a statement to this effect in the first line of the lead. This was hastily rejected by the pro-astrology editors. An edit war ensued and the page was locked down for a month. During this time, a lively debate has taken turns. However, essentially it has become clear that there are no credible sources for this claim of "is". Rather, the sources indicate that there is widespread use of statements that astrology is "considered to be" or is "believed to be" a pseudoscience. There is a world of difference between the two formulations. As there are reliable sources for the latter formulation no one can object to it. At the same time, there are scientific studies which find that astrology has some validity. However, the scientists involved also allege that the scientific consensus, which is based on the belief that astrology is not a valid field of scientific inquiry (itself based on pre-analytical assumptions of the impossibility of material causality, such as a light bulb in the delivery room having more gravitational effect than Jupiter) have ignored the results. Dr. Ertel and Dr. Eysensack have therefore made the claim that the sceptics are pseudo-rational when asserting astrology is nonesense when, in fact, their carefully constructed resarch indicates that there is something there. In other words, they believe astrology is a field worthy of research with scientific methods. As such it is potentially scientific. However, this is hotly debated. Some sceptic suggest the research is not credible because it is published in scientific journals that discuss a variety of topics away from mainstream science. In the end we are stuck with two opposing views, which are almost diametrically opposed. As we need to re-edit the lead, some consensus must be struck. We have made some progress as the sceptics have moved away from the "is" formulation to "considered". CostMary has also offered several redrafting proposal, ammending them as the discussion evolved. Can we build on that to develop a consensus for a new or reworded lead? Erekint (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

For once, I agree with Mystyplx. The article won't be stable unless some consensus that both sides can live with is reached. The pro-astrology editors have offered a proposal for a new text or to find a way to change the wording so that all legitimate concerns are met. A reaction by the sceptical editors in a compromising spirit would be a welcome next step.Erekint (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Compromise on what? Ignoring the consensus up to this point as well as various arb decisions? umm.. No. There is no controversy here, despite the attempts to spin one. Go argue on some other page. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well at least you went with Semmelweis instead of Galileo. Semmelweis' idea started as a fringe theory but became rapidly accepted and mainstream as the obvious objective success of his efforts became undeniable (a significantly reduced number of deaths), and there was a massive convergence of empirical evidence from other fields (biology and chemistry) that ultimately cohered into the germ theory of disease. Astrology started out as a mainstream belief in the influence on the heavens. As more and more evidence accumulated that there was no reason to believe it and further there was no empirical data that was generally agreed to substantiate it, it became rejected. You're reversing the order here. Semmelweis' ideas went from what would have been a fringe theory or pseudoscience to a mainstream belief when it was confirmed by research. Astrology went from a mainstream belief to fringe theory to pseudoscience as research accumulated that the stars and planets are just distant points of light with no way of influencing humans beyond their utility as time keeping or spatial orientation.
Aspirin had no known mechanism, but it was easily demonstrated with empirical research replicated across countless individual subjects and locations that it worked. In addition, there was always a plausible mechanism through which it could work - plants produce chemicals, chemicals interact with biological systems. Aspirin is not an appropriate comparison because it was never pseudoscience, merely a plausible mechanism that lacked details.
Astrology has neither a plausible mechanism (gravity of a distant planet or even the sun is overwhelmed by the mass of the earth itself; the reflected light of planets isn't even enough to see by; what's left? I don't care by the way, please don't try to explain it to me), nor a well-agreed upon set of data that can be easily replicated or substantiated. It's most parsimonious "explanation" is intrapsychic - the Forer effect and a variety of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. Neither require the invention of new rules of physics, biology or chemistry. The more appropriate comparison would be phrenology, or the miasmas theory of disease, or vitalism, or the geocentric universe.
We should be informing the public about astrology as a pseudoscience with historical roots in many societies - all of which developed divergent systems of thought. We shouldn't be portraying it as "cutting edge" or "unjustly rejected", because it is neither - it's obvious pseudoscience. For astrology to be accepted on wikipedia, WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG require extremely good quality sources to substantiate it as a scientific theory (I'm talking review articles in Nature, Science and major statements by the National Academy of Science), but the sources required to criticize, or label it a pseudoscience do not need need the same level of reliability - because astrology is clearly considered by most scholars to be pseudoscience. This is deliberately not symmetrical, to avoid POV-pushing editors from insisting on a "debate" when there isn't one. Please review WP:PARITY for more details. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, much of your statement should be placed in a box and placed above along with the FAQ. Excellent! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience is not supported by any evidence. The state of knowledge and evidence about astrology, while raising concerns about its validity, does not remove uncertainty about this fact. It is clear that some here, based on their understanding, firmly "believe" astrology is a pseudoscience beyond doubt. While they argue that astrology lacks plausible mechanisms, this only reflects their incredible lack of imagination about the nature of the universe. There are always those who argue that everything is now fully and exhaustively known. It happened in the 19th century and is happening still in the 21st, right here! Such flawed arguments cannot negate the fact that the statment "astrology is a pseudoscience" is a belief. As has come out in the discussion here, the statement that astrology "is" a pseudoscience has never been proved. Trying to impose such a belief as fact is therefore violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). On the other hand, there are many who believe astrology works, including those who have studied the subject matter for decades. They cite scientific evidence as supporting this conclusion. Of course, they don't insist on the wording that "astrology is a science" or "astrology really works" in this article. They accept the uncertainty, while generally considering this to be so. In view of this, the formulation that "astrology is considered to be a pseudoscience", seems to strike the right balance about the scepticism of the scientific community and does not go beyond published sources and evidence.
The findings of scientists carrying out this research and publishing them in peer reviewed journals also need to be brought out more clearly in the article. The current discussion is inqdequate, even a hatchet job. The published comments of several scientists about the tendency of the scientific community to ignore evidence in favour of astrology, suggesting pseudorationality, also merit inclusion. These are significant views when discussing astrology. Arguing that the views of those researching, studying or practicing astrology are fringe because the scientific community considers astrology to be a pseudoscience is ridiculous, especially when considering that the article is about astrology. Let's not forget the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the planet believe astrology has merit. Is it so that the scientists really know better? Some do not think so. And, even if so, would that imply that those favouring astrology ought to be ignored? Of course not! In sum, attempts to overreach in an effort to discredit astrology and silence the pro-astrology views based on a self-serving interpretation by sceptical POV pushers of Wikipedia policies (WP:PARITY) is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia as an on-line dictionary. Erekint (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Erekint on those points.
WLU - We at least agree that a field that was once considered a pseudoscience is not always a pseudoscience. “Semmelweis' ideas went from what would have been a fringe theory or pseudoscience to a mainstream belief when it was confirmed by research.”
However, you dispute my original point that a ‘lack of known mechanism’ is no justification to classify a field as a pseudoscience. This argument was refuted by Paul Thagard Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience, which has been cited here by sceptics and on the Wikipedia page on Pseudoscience and arguably underpins the entire sceptical case. He wrote:
“Finally the lack of a physical foundation hardly marks a theory as unscientific. Examples: when Wegener proposed continental drift, no mechanism was known, and a link between smoking and cancer has been established statistically though the details of carcinogenesis remain to be discovered. Hence the objections of Bok, Jerome and Kurtz fail to mark astrology as pseudoscience.” The same point on plate tectonics was originally made by Carl Sagan.
When you state that Semmelweisz’s theory and evidence was rapidly accepted, you should also make clear that his work was heavily criticised and ridiculed by the scientific community. His work was never accepted during his lifetime and was only accepted when the mechanism was known. There are other cases where evidence has existed and been put to use for a long time while there was no plausible mechanism. Examples are the compass and the tides. The lodestone which transformed into the compass was not understood until the discovery of the Earth’s magnetic field in the 20th century. Also, the connection between the positions of the sun and moon (and arguably Venus and Mars) and tidal motion identified as ancient knowledge by Ptolemy was considered implausible but is now an established scientific part of natural astrology. Would you have argued that the proposed connection between the moon and the tides in Kepler’s Astronomia Nova should have been rejected as pseudoscience because his mechanism was implausible? What is implausible is subjective and limited to the vision of the scientist. It was fortunate this ‘pseudoscience’ was published and widely circulated in the scientific community as it most likely had an influence on Newton.
Anyway, until I can be persuaded otherwise, this argument is specious and has been widely debunked by sceptics. If other sceptics who have been involved in this discussion page, kwami, Hans Adler, ocaasi also claim that the lack of known mechanism justifies a field as a pseudoscience, then I would like to hear their case and I think it should be on record. If not, WLU I suggest you drop it as I believe by pursuing it, you are making the sceptical argument look desperate and unnecessarily inviting lengthy debate when we should focus on looking for wording on Wikipedia's Astrology page. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Additionally, the attempts to lean on Semmelweis and Wegener - despite them being wholly unrelated to astrology - are an obvious fallacy. Those who try to use the Galileo Gambit merely discredit themselves further. bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, both Erekint and Robertcurrey are missing the point. If Wikipedia were around during the time of Semmelweis, it would have first ignored him, then as a small number of poeple began publishing discussion, it would have documented this bizarre fringe idea. Then as more people started to publish articles talking about how it works, we would note it as a minority opinion. Then as the entire field embraced the germ theory of disease, we would have discussed it as a mainstream opinion. Finally, when only a tiny minority existed who rejected the germ theory of disease, we would have a discussion of Semmelweis' theories as the historical process to arrive at the current practice and talk pages would abound with germ theory deniers who attempt to push their absurd nonsense onto the page and be roundly mocked for it. Wikipedia reflects the current consensus - that astrology is a pseudoscience that only a tiny handful of fringe believers give any credibility, while scientists respond with "What really? There are people who actually believe in astrology? Shit, we need to do something about the educational system..." Astrology went from mainstream to pseudoscience, and you are both attempting to inappropriately push it back into the mainstream. The fact that two hundred years ago scientsits didn't know about the magnetic field, or germ theory, or plate tectonics, is utterly irrelevant to the fact that right now astrology is seen as worthless, credulous, popular nonsense. Stop arguing from past analogy, when we are attempting to deal with the present rejection. If astrology comes to be a mainstream opinion, then we will document it as such. Right now it's considered laughable bullshit that only a tiny number of persistent single purpose accounts on wikipedia attempt to give credibility to. It's not just that astrology lacks a mechanism, it's that it's considered by anyone with a brain in their head to be crap. Astrology is not comparable to plate tectonics, it's comparable to vitalism, phrenology, animal magnetism, the humoural theory of disease and hepatomancy.
I'm getting quite sick of the civil POV-pushing and if it persists I will bring it up at WP:AN or a related venue to pursue a topic ban. Your arguments and sources have no credibility, are not permitted by several policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT) and there's a damned arbitration hearing that specifically singles out astrology as pseudoscience. The statement that astrology is a pseudoscience is extremely well supported. The fact that the POV-pushing single purpose accounts don't like this fact is irrelevant. The argument from popularity won't change this. Do scientists really know better? Yes they do. That's why we write articles on evolution from the perspective of biologists, not creationists, and pages on astrology and astronomy from the perspective of astronomers and physicists. I've wasted enough time on this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Rawhide diaries

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

Nice try. They're just dealing with an increasingly disruptive editor. Not the first with this POV and certainly not the last. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You need a plural there guy. Anyway, WP:SHUN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, Brangifer, Mystyplx, Bobrayner, Hans Adler and Griswaldo, you can take your cue from WLU and shun me, but how will you deal with the informed and logically presented complaints of Apagogeron, Robertcurrey,Gary PH, Costmary, Aquirata and Petersburg regarding problems with the astrology article? Shun them too? Religious persecutions? Lock the article into perpetuity? The only durable soulution is to hammer out a compromise in the wording of this article.
PROPOSAL: It seems to me that the only editor here who has any credibility left with both sides is Ocaasi. Why don't we entrust him with the task of hammering out a settlement with a view to the main arguments of both sides, with due consideration for Wikipedia protocol? Erekint (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the Dec. 2006 Arbitration Committee went wrong:

"Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

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

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

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

Mystyplx, personal views on the place of astrology in science are all over the place. I am sure you agree with me that personal views don't matter on Wikipedia and that only published sources matter. Moreover, I am also sure you agree with me that claims about a particular subject matter need to be sourced and verifiable. If we have good sources for a claim but cannot verify if the claim is valid, the claim should be phrased accordingly. The big stink here has been about the important claim made here that astrology is a pseudoscience. The claim is easily sourced but has not been adequately verified. The request has been made to rephrase the claim such that it is not oversold. The same holds true about the claim that astrology works. It is a highly debated proposition. First, there are all kinds of astrology and frankly a lot of it is likely fiction. Second, there are plenty of studies which conclude there are no effects. Some argue it is because the astrology being tested is too simplistic. Horoscopic astrology is a more organised way to account for the totality of cosmic influences on human life. Third, there are studies that report positive results. However, a major lacuna is that no causal explanation is identified. Accordingly, this quandry about what astrology is in terms of science and its efficacy should be described in a fair manner, avoiding absolute claims either way. It would best that an editor trusted by both sides redraft the controversial passages. Many points have been raised concerning the lead and the science section. Fixing those would be a good start. Peace. Erekint (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What you mean by "sourced but have not been verified" is a violation of one of Wikipedia's basic principles about "verifiability not truth", though you have cleverly co-opted "verify" to mean something entirely different than it does at Wikipedia. Indeed by "not verified" you mean not proven to be true by your own standards. See WP:TRUTH for more information. The problem here is that you and your POV pushing friends are repeating arguments, over and over, that are a complete non-starter here given our various policies and guidelines. Please stop. It is becoming disruptive. Please also note that this entry falls under the arbitration decisions mentioned at the top of the page and editors editing in this area are subject to discretionary sanctions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Important reading for everyone here

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

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

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

Is that edit change in the lead acceptable to others? Erekint (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to me. In our PSCI policy, we state, Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. It even gives astrology as the prototypical example! The current lede categorizes astrology as pseudoscience. I consider phrasing such as "widely considered" to be an attempt to water down that consensus, to portray it as less absolute than it actually is. Such qualifiers are used when there is legitimate debate. There is a hollow-Earch "theory", but it is also pseudoscience, and we don't say the Earth is "widely" believed to be solid because of it, even in the Hollow Earth article. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I also do not support the addition of "generally considered" to the lead. There is ample evidence that astrology should be labeled a pseudoscience, I don't think there's any actual scholars in real educational institutions who give astrology any credit (or if a small number do exist, they're the tiny minority mentioned at WP:UNDUE). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Briefly, I proposed this earlier and it was not accepted. My comments at Robert's page were more generally about reflecting RS rather than Astrologists when it comes to scientific matters. On the merits of this change, it's my personal preference that we don't label things in a definitional way, if possible. I don't believe Astrology is a pseudoscience; I don't believe anything is a pseudoscience--and I mean that linguistically. Pseudoscience is a word that characterizes a set of practices, and also a ranking of something's credibility. I wouldn't expect WP to say that Saving Private Ryan is a first-class drama, but I more that it is widely considered to be a first-class drama. That's the spirit in which I meant the suggestion. To me they're virtually the same thing in meaning but I find their spirit differs. It's the difference between 'Intelligent Design is nonsense' and 'Intelligent Design is widely considered nonsense'. To me, the latter is no less significant, it just sounds like Wikipedia itself isn't speaking.
@Kwami, I don't take the ArbCom reading either way. "...generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience" seems consistent with my version as well.
@WLU, I said 'widely considered'. Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've adjusted, but consider both inappropriate. I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter, to the point that it's even more of a pseudoscience than intelligent design. Because science has an empirical touchstone I don't think a pseudoscientific topic or label can be compared to an aesthetic judgment about a film. Also, since the consensus on astrology is even more pronounced than the pseudocontroversy of intelligent design (astrology has been considered by more scientists for longer and is better understood than intelligent design, which is really a recent extension of creationism and most scientists aren't even aware of it) I think the flat "is pseudoscience" is best. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU states "I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and there's no real debate on the matter" (italics mine). In other words, it ultimately boils down to what we believe and there is no absolute truth in the matter. Given this conumdrum, why can't we all agree to say something like "astrology is believed to be a pseudoscience", "is widely believed" as Ocaasi suggests, or is "generally considered" as Petersburg suggests? It would put the matter to rest. Erekint (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be going nowhere, but for the record. my suggestion was "widely considered a pseudoscience". There's no belief involved; it's a broadly held assessment and conclusion. Ocaasi (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Widely considered" is a good formulation (sorry for misquoting). If we have an agreement on a wording like that or what Petersburg has suggested, we can make the change and put an end to this debate. Erekint (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Popular astrology is widely accepted by the public. "Widely accepted as useful" is much better than "widely considered pseudoscience." Scientists are a very small minority, and a grossly uninformed one at that (to put it mildly). Aquirata (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand all the fuss. Why not simply go with the guideline? It is a consensus representation by many experienced editors. Why try to reinvent the wheel? This has been settled already. If one doesn't like the guideline, change that and not try to swim against the current. Petersburg (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see lots of discussion without much progress (which is not necessarily a bad thing). My impression is that the main sticking point currently is the p-word. So let's try to take an objective and unbiased look at this issue. Astrologers and pro-astrology editors insist that astrology cannot be labelled a pseudoscience because it is either not a science (art, divination, etc) or it is a science with verifiable claims (and it can actually be both at the same time). Skeptics claim that astrology is pseudoscience because even WP policy states it is so: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. The current wording of the article is as follows: It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved.
Now it seems to me first of all that editors of WP are bound by the first statement, i.e. (1) astrology may be categorized as pseudoscience, and (2) the article may contain the information that astrology is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. These two points are given at the current state of WP and futile to argue about. If pro-astrology editors wish to remove the categorization or the statement from the article, they will have to work on changing relevant policies. Even if all editors were convinced that astrology was not pseudoscience, they could not state this in the article without first changing at least the Fringe theory guideline.
On the other hand, and to be fair, it also seems to me that the case of pseudoscience in the first paragraph is overstated. There is a difference between IS and GENERALLY CONSIDERED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. It would be a nearly impossible task to reliably verify that astrology is pseudoscience (due to the complexity of even trying to define what astrology is) while it is a simple fact that it is generally considered so by most scientists. For this reason, the obvious and only possible way forward and out of this deadlock is to replace the offending statement with the proper one according to the Fringe theory guideline.
What I propose is this: Replace the wording It is a classic example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections which either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved with this: It is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. This is the truth, it is easily verifiable, adheres to WP policies and guidelines, doesn't overstate the case and will remove the sticking point with pro-astrology editors in order to move forward with the rest of the article. All other points can then be dealt with properly in the main body of the article.
I would like to ask that everyone put away their warrior selves for a moment and consider this proposal at face value. Do you want to do the right thing or keep arguing ad nauseam? Come on guys, belief has nothing to with this! Petersburg (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
That needs to be addressed at the policy page. If they agree that classic examples of pseudoscience may be described that way, so be it, but that's a decision that would have ramifications far beyond this one article. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Which policy states that astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience? Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We attribute opinions ("politician X is incompetent"), but established facts are simply reported. We don't say "according to scientists, the earth is round", and we don't need weasel words in this case either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Where in WP is it an established fact that astrology is pseudoscience? I'm striving to be a neutral editor (as I'm sure you are), and my belief has nothing to do with how a subject must be represented here. Petersburg (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The PSCI policy was set by the arbitration committee in a herculean effort due of chronic attempts of True Believers to deny claims of pseudoscience in many many articles. I think therefore that if the policy is not clear, we should clarify it there, so as to not encourage those who would game the system on individual articles. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is in the policy pertaining to astrology in addition to the fringe guideline I quoted already? Is there anything more specific? Anything better? Is there something you don't like about the guideline? This is not easy for me either but we cannot represent anything we cannot back up with verifiable and acceptable sources. Petersburg (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much it AFAIK. "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Above that (not part of the Arbcom ruling), they say, "If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. This is not, however, as bad as it sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."
That is, we may call pseudoscience "pseudoscience". We don't need to hedge about it, or use weasel words, we can just say it. What we can't do is say it's "false" because it's pseudoscience. In the lede we say it's pseudoscience, and we do not say it's false. (As for the "scientists have received" part, that's mostly to do with scientific articles where PS enters in for some reason or other. That's not the case here: most of the article is objectively descriptive about astrology, with only one section (summarized in the lede) about the scientific interpretation.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm familiar with, too. However, I can find no reference within WP policies and guidelines stating that astrology is pseudoscience. We might believe that it is but this has no relevance in the article. Astrology is distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" as "generally considered pseudoscience" (2nd rung). Therefore I can find no basis for stating that it is, strange as this may seem. Petersburg (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
They say that we can "categorize it as pseudoscience". That's what we do. That differs from psychoanalysis, where we can say that some consider it to be pseudoscience but shouldn't categorize it as such. The astrologers here are trying to move it from the 'astrology' treatment to the 'psychoanalysis' treatment. As for it being pseudoscience, apart from it being the example given, it's easy enough to verify with RSs that that's how it's classified. We've already done that, over and over. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, we can categorize it as such, which is why Pseudoscience is listed under Categories. However, it differs from rung 1 pseudoscience, which is the obvious case. And it differs from rung 3, which cannot be stated or categorized as such. Astrology is in-between the two: it can be categorized as such but can only be characterized as generally considered. There must be a difference between rung 1 and rung 2 cases, and this is what I believe the difference is. Do you see it differently from my understanding? Petersburg (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I read "categorized" as "characterized". Do we know they were talking about WP categories when they said that, or were they using normal English? (As in "priest-craft has categorized sacrilege as the greatest sin".) As for the diff from rung 1, they "may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration". We give this more consideration: we do not simply say it's pseudoscience and leave it at that, but describe how it achieved that label, who says so, as well as the objections and the attempts to prove astrology. With a purported perpetual motion machine, we can say it's bogus without any references to that effect because any perpetual motion machine is bogus. (I'm reading the WP:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience section.) We're not taking that approach with astrology. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. However, I believe that if policy makers had intended us to both categorize and characterize astrology as pseudoscience, they would have spelled it out and not left it ambiguous or open to interpretation. Astrology is clearly distinguished from "obvious pseudoscience" and the description here should reflect that. As for rung 2, you do not go to rung 1 and suppose what we need to do for rung 2. You go to rung 2 and read it. It says two things: (1) it can be categorized as PS, and (2) it can be described as the majority of scientists considers it PS. Nothing less and nothing more. The reason why this policy is there so that the PS question is not avoided and made clear. Applying a single-sentence policy should be a no-brainer. Petersburg (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Haha, nice try. You read something as something else when it suits you. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:REDFLAG and WP:BURO. The first says that extraordinary claims (future events for everyone born at a certain time all follow a similar pattern and can be predicted) need extraordinary evidence. The second says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: policies describe principles and do not attempt to specify every detail such as whether a particular topic is pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The first policy has no bearing on this. When there is a clear description of how to treat astrology, we simply follow it. It is spelled out for you at WP:FRINGE/PS, second point. Read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersburg (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And what exactly is an extraordinary claim? Two of the three bullets would argue the opposite. Aquirata (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


I made this exact same argument in this exact same article a couple years ago and the consensus went against me. I too don't like the phrase "astrology is a pseudoscience." Simply because it's bad writing. "generally considered" seems more truthful and less dogmatic. Mystylplx (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration committee

The arbitration committee WP:PSCI came up with 4 groupings but only two concern us here--Obvious pseudoscience and generally considered pseudoscience. They specifically mention astrology as an example of the second grouping yet many are trying to treat it as if it were the first grouping. BTW, I personally believe that astrology is clearly pseudoscience. I also believe GWB was the worst President in history but I wouldn't put that sentence in the George W Bush article, and this in spite of the fact I could find plenty of wp:rs to support it. It's a question of accuracy and editorial integrity. Bluntly describing it as a pseudoscience comes off as arrogant and dogmatic to me. I guess I agree with Sagan on this one--a little scholarly caution in our use of language is not a bad thing. Mystylplx (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will be removing the offending statement until a consensus can be reached on proper wording - unless anyone objects to it. Aquirata (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I object. There is clearly no consensus to remove it either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
How many different threads do you need to say the same thing? There is a proposal above, it has no consensus to change, and the points about the wording from the ARBPS has already been addressed. Creating new threads stating the same thing over and over is very frowned upon. Yobol (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Lets restict this to one thead.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Added this tag to the controversial 'pseudoscience' statement. Clearly there is no consensus on how to present astrology with respect to pseudoscience, so it's the least we can do. You will need to discuss this here rather then reverting. Aquirata (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And I removed the tag. There is no consensus that the content is dubious. The article is properly sourced and the lead reflects article content. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You cannot remove the tag without discussion. There is no consensus on the wording which is why the tag is needed. The other alternative is to remove the statement altogether. Aquirata (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You cannot restore the tag without consensus per WP:BRD. You are edit warring. Stop it. I'll let others remove it. If you do it again you will be reported. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong. You cannot remove a tag without discussing it first. You and Yobol are edit warring. How the heck did you notice a change on the page so quickly? What prompted you to revert something so quickly? There is no consensus in the wording, this is not clear to you after pages and pages of arguments? Aquirata (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop pov-pushing. You are surely able to read the very lengthy debate above. Reliable sources agree that astrology is pseudoscience. Wikipedia is an ecyclopædia; it must reflect what reliable sources say. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Aquirata. You ask how we noticed? Surely you jest. Haven't you heard of a watchlist? Currently I "have 5,713 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", and over 32,000 edits. I have been around the block a few times. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool it, everybody! This is getting out of hand. I've moved the Proposal page to the end as voting is still ongoing. It is clear that views are very divergent on this issue and the proposal stands to be rejected. I would urge the sceptics to reconsider their votes. If the motion is carried for a modest compromise on the wording, I believe it would for once create a communal consensus where both the sceptics and pro-astrology page editors would protect the lead. It would go a long way to create an atmosphere of mutual interest and respect, which is essential for ensuring a decent and informative astrology page. Peace. Erekint (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise susgestion

Lets say what the siutation is "It is regarded by the scientific community as an example of pseudoscience, as it makes predictive claims and connections that either cannot be falsified or have been consistently disproved."Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We are already dealing with this matter below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposal -- Brangifer (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Divhide discussions

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

So by consensus(?) Bravo! above is the last thread worthy to keep alive for everyone's time and emulation? Please see my comments there. Apagogeron (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It truly is a waste of time when detailed discussion, aimed to establish and obtain consensus, is hidden from view. I have unhidden the latest discussion on the collaboration of the lead, not that I consider the previous versions irrelevant, because all those sections include the discussion that has generated the consensus behind the comments detailed in the latest version, but because with all the diversion tactics going on here, it may be useful to have only the current version more clearly on display. Note that the discussion here is about the general introduction, and that controversy has focussed on only one word within that - that's a great shame but no need to prevent the inclusion of all the other delicately explored points that have been discussed to find the best general agreement.Costmary (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving towards consensus

A few things are clear.

  • First, verifiability is not truth

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

Conclusion: a claim needs to be sourced but its truth can remain open to debate.
  • Second,Wikipedia is clear about the role of bureaucracy

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

Conclusion: bureaucratic obfuscation is not the way to go.
  • Third, this is what the guidelines say on astrology as a pseudoscience.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Conclusion: "Generally considered pseudoscience" is the right formulation.
  • PROPOSAL: do we have agreement on the following formulation by Petersburg

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

Erekint (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
For the eighth time, no. Proposing the same thing eight times does not change the fact that you're trying to obfuscate the well-referenced classification of astrology as pseudoscience.
Take pseudohistory instead of pseudosciece. The premier example of pseudohistory is probably Holocaust Denial. We don't say that it's "generally considered pseudohistorical by the academic community", we just say it's pseudohistory. We're an encyclopedia: we don't compromise with the demonstrably wrong in order to gain consensus. — kwami (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Arguing by analogy is very... pseudo-scientific. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with astrology. Thank you for showing off your blatant lack of knowledge about the subject you are purporting to edit. Aquirata (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to be too sophisticated. Should have said, blatant disregard and colossal ignorance. Aquirata (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Erekint, I must confess that I didn't feel particularly flattered when you lumped me in with other, pro-astrology editors. However, I appreciated the gesture behind it. It's nice to see you come around to a more reasonable stance. Petersburg (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Petersburg, I referenced editors who have argued for improvements in the present formulation. No meaning beyond that was inferred. Thanks for injecting moderation and common sense into the discussion. If we are to have a compromise both sides must yield ground. Compromise is often a solution that neither side likes but both can live with. This debate has convinced me that if a body of Wikipedia editors has already developed a certain formulation, we need to live with it. Editors on both sides have expressed unhappiness with this formulation, which suggests it strikes a fair balance. Those editors, however, need to go the source to argue for changes to the given formulation. This article talk page is not appropriate for that and holding up the needed edits as a strategy to preserve the status quo appears to be in situ. The question is if it is possible to bring the few editors who are responsible for the current controversial edits, and who fight toot and nail against the adoption of the Wikipedia formulation, around to this realisation through reasoned debate? So far, they have resisted all appeals for moderating their stance to reach a compromise.
RESOLUTION OF DEBATE: I've tried to develop consensus, but it appears to be headed for deadlock. To break a deadlock requires at least a 3/4 majority of the votes cast. It appears we will need to call for a vote on the question of adopting the Wikipedia guideline or not. In doing so, we can hope that other editors see the wisdom of making a change, in order to prevent a recurrence of debate on this single point. Do others agree with that approach to resolving the debate? Getting beyond this point should be a relief for all concerned.Erekint (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, we're not a democracy. Voting only matters for matters of style, not of substance. The only thing that matters for that is sourcing. — kwami (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody say "offsite coordination"?

This is an interesting read: I'm beginning to wonder (again) if Wikipedia is where we should be putting our efforts..
Enough is enough. We've had huge volumes of POV pushing, TLDR rants, and what looks suspiciously like meatpuppetry. There have been repeated warnings about the arbcom ruling. I realise that astrology didn't get where it is today without the ability to bulldoze on despite the facts, but now is the time to stop. Stop now. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A blog post? This upsets you? And please be specific about who you are accusing of "meatpuppetry" Mystylplx (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Offsite coordination is a very bad thing, as is extensive pov-pushing. Need I explain why? bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that someone following this discussion has removed the posting. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This does indeed look like a deliberate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to push an agenda. This is not only disturbing but also cowardly and disgusting and I would ask whoever is responsible to look at their motives and attitudes. We can only converse and co-operate in an atmosphere of honesty.Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Bobrayner, please describe what you read there. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Three blogposts, in March, discussing this article, this talkpage, and how to further the astrological cause. Including a message to somebody called "RC". That's as far as my memory goes, sorry; I should have kept an offline copy (which is a good habit to have). Since it was taken down so fast, it's reasonable to assume that the author is either in this debate right now, or was contacted directly by somebody who is in this debate right now, to hide the evidence of offsite coordination. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
We do have a professional astrologer on this page with those initials. See if you can determine if RC is him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha: Google has a cached copy of all three posts. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at some very crude textual comparisons, I think I know which wikipedian writes the blog; and it's somebody who hasn't commented here in the last few moments. Perhaps a compatriot told them to remove the evidence; perhaps not - we won't get far with such speculation. I would merely point out the blatant attempt at subverting the debate - and the fact that somebody knew it was a bad thing and tried to cover their tracks. The debate has been poisoned; any apparent support for astrology here is an artefact of cheating, not evidence that a significant proportion of grownups still take it seriously. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that its clear that the debate is now tarnished, and that the claim of support for inlcusion of the caveat of gneraly regarded is tainted by this.Slatersteven (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Slatersteven, please note that the sceptics have benefitted by the announcement of this debate on the sceptics noticeboard on March 14 (see below), which likely attracted other sceptics to the page. That announcement seems to fit the description of meat puppetry. Erekint (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
By characterising the use of wikipedia noticeboards - a vital part of the community - as meatpuppetry, you are only discrediting yourself further. There is a very clear difference between open cooperation on wikipedia, and sneaky off-site manipulation (followed by the deletion of blogposts). Either you do not believe there's a difference, or you know there's a yawning gulf but pretend not to see it; I do not know which is worse. Either way, it's time to stop. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Google cache will soon be updated, I've copied the 3 posts here. (Copy & paste; no editing apart from cropping extraneous non-blog text on the page: "0 comments", "Links to this post", and the search labels. The links have been lost, of course, as well as highlighting of the paragraph "I'm beginning to wonder (again) if Wikipedia is where we should be putting our efforts" (end of 2nd post).)

Center of the Universe at the Edge of the World: Astrological theory and perspectives from Ken McRitchie: relevant blog posts

Sunday, March 6, 2011 Remove straw man and authoritarian arguments from the Wikipedia Astrology article The Wikipedia Astrology article is riddled with straw man arguments and authoritarian decrees and the Talk page is filled with silly discussions over these rational fallacies. Editors should remove these fallacies.

Astrology is a very old discipline and unfortunately it has outgrown, and is now misrepresented by, some of its own language. In a similar way, the branch of astrology that became meteorology is a misrepresentation because it is not the study of meteors, but rather of weather. The use of ancient terminology leads people who are ignorant of astrology, or people who are just deviant literalists, to accuse astrology of having pseudoscientific claims. For these people to set up these terms as straw men and require astrologers to defend the literal meanings is a fallacy that violates the rational criterion of relevance.

The study of astrology connects the modern world with ancient traditions. The word "astrology" derives from "star" but astrologers will study whatever celestial bodies they wish to study, just like the meteorologists are not confined to the study of meteors to forecast weather. That astrology must only study "stars" is irrelevant and to argue over this is silly and irrational.

To insist that astrology is a pre-Copernican view that equates to belief in a flat Earth, is ignorant. Astrology uses a relativistic frame of reference that no scientist would argue with. It maps the celestial bodies relative to the person or thing to be studied, which is placed at the center, and this is neither the Sun nor the Earth. What we know as stars have always been stars. All other bodies in the solar system, including the Sun and Moon, are considered to be, for want of a better word, "planets" of the person or subject to be studied because these bodies all move in some interesting fashion around the subject, which is at the center.

Imagine now that you are at the center of your own universe and the planets and stars around you are your planets and your stars, because this is your universe. If you think this sounds New Age, then you've come to the right place. This "new" point of view is also very ancient. To say that astrology is Earth-centered, or must not call the Sun and Moon planets, is a straw man designed to start a silly, irrational argument.

The same goes for the difference between the signs and some of the constellations that have the same names. Astrologers have known about this and made their choice more than 2000 years ago. Signs are measured from the vernal point and are unrelated to the starry constellations. To confuse signs with constellations because of the similarity in names is silly and irrational.

Planetary or stellar "influence" is not a causal effect emanating from the planets and stars that astrologers directly measure. Everyone knows that the meanings in astrology are inferred from empirical observations, despite the mechanical implications of word "influence." Similarly, in some new sciences ordinary words fail or are used metaphorically and even whimsically. To argue over the semantics of this is silly and irrational.

The "symbolic language" of astrology is not a mystery or ambiguous. It has followed the same development that any syntactical representation of symbols such as used in chemistry, mathematics, or any written language uses and the results can be seen and understood in any astrology text. To argue over the analysis of "symbols" or the speaker of a "language" with regard to astrology is a straw man and is silly and irrational.

Astrological "rulership" does not mean that the planets manipulate people by remote control. "Rulership" may not be the best word, but it is the tradition and astrologers know what it means. It is a non-judgmental observation of one property or thing regarded as a set that typically indicates the presence of other properties or things as members, often theorized as a correlation. To argue over the literal meaning of “rulership” is silly and irrational.

These are all straw man and red herring fallacies and editors should not be drawn into semantic arguments and silly, irrational debates over them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Throughout the Wikipedia astrology article, astrology is conceptually misrepresented as being some sort of "alternative" to science, as an absolutist, black and white, either-or situation of conflicting paradigms battling for scientific supremacy. This is not the case. Like other disciplines adopted by New Age thinkers, astrology is "complementary." It fills in the voids left by conventional, more scientific approaches, which are nonetheless necessary for healthy living and informed perspectives.To characterize modern science and astrology as adversarial is again a straw man designed to start a silly irrational argument.

Over the course of history, astrology has had its own reforms and revolutions in thought. Paracelsus understood astrology as a question of "correlations" between macroscopic and microscopic worlds rather than direct physical influences, because no causal connections could be determined. This was a radical theory at the time, but gradually the idea of non-causal correlations became adopted. Francis Bacon added to this with his suggestion that the stars "rather incline than compel." This represented a puzzle for astrologers and scientists interested in astrology to figure out and evaluate. The methods by which correlational effects can be mathematically measured and weighed to show inclinations is relatively new in astrology, and have been statistically demonstrated in falsifiable tests only within the past 30 years.

The Science section of the article is filled with a succession of the subjective beliefs of one scientist after another, from al-Farabi to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It directly emulates the controversial 1975 Humanist "Objections to Astrology" article signed by 186 leading scientists. Astronomer Carl Sagan objected to the "Objections" article because the scientists argued solely on the basis of their own authority and this gives the impression of closed mindedness. Physicist Paul Feyerabend compared the “Objections” article to the Malleus Maleficarum, which launched the Inquisition, only he regarded it as being worse.

These claims by notable scientists against astrology that Wikipedia has listed are more of the same thing. They are not scientific at all, but are arguments from authority by people who have not studied astrology and have no idea what they are talking about. Editors should be mindful of these fallacies and allow only factual objective information where science is concerned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

To declare that astrology is a pseudoscience from the outset is detrimental to legitimate scientists who may wish to investigate it. Scientists have a right to study and test whatever they want and to challenge other scientists based on their evaluations and discoveries. Because of recent empirical assessments, in particular the reversal of the renowned 1985 Shawn Carlson study, which in 2009 was found to support astrology, and improved methods of ranking and rating data, there is an expectation of further scientific advances in astrology.

No one, least of all astrologers, expects all of astrology to be amenable to scientific evaluation. For example, there has been a lively proliferation and discourse of psychological theories among astrologers, such as those postulated by Carl Jung. Yet only a few of these theories may ever be scientifically evaluated. The theories of astrology are complex and its practice requires intuition to deal with the combination of many variables. For these reasons and others, such as the scarcity of accurate data and the lack of funding, astrology has not been easy to scientifically investigate.

Posted by Ken McRitchie at 1:50 PM

I find it somewhat amusing that they maintain that scientific evidence supports astrology at the same time as claiming that astrology is not amenable to scientific evaluation. Also weird that, even after all the discussion on this page about "reading the stars", they still think that the astro- in astrology means "star", and even that the meteo- in meteorology means "meteor"! — kwami (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Repetitive proposal, proposer banned

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

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

It is not that we assert a POV, we must demonstrate that "our" POV is supported by reliable sources. I've provided, to date, 35 sources that explicitly and casually indicate astrology is pseudoscience - in fact, holding it up as an exemplar of pseudoscience. The POV given precedence on our pages is based on the number, reliability and quality of sources that exist to support a particular statement. It's not POV, or a "wrong" POV because an editor disagrees with it - it's a majority or minority POV because of the ability of editors to substantiate a statement with reference to sources. Again, astrology loses not because it has more passionate "skeptics" but because of the avalanche of sources that can be found that explicitly state "astrology is pseudoscience". POV pushing occurs when an editor attempts to change the page to a preferred version in the absence of adequate supporting sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is ridiculous and useless. This question is being posed because presently every astrology happy SPA on Wikipedia has gathered at the talk page here and someone thinks that they can create a pro-Astrology consensus out of these numbers. Prior consensus about pseudoscience and astrology's place in it reflects a much larger community decision. Someone needs to warn you all about the pseudoscience arbitration decisions and about discretionary sanctions. It is also quite obvious that at least some of the present group of astrologers and astrology supporters are here because of off-Wiki activity of some kind. User:Aquirata is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2007 until entering this discussion. User:Erekint is a brand new account as of February, also thus far a pro-astrology SPA only. User:Petersburg had 10 edits in 2010, 4 in 2009 and then some more in 2007 prior to jumping into this debate. User:Apagogeron is a pro-astrology SPA who hadn't edited since 2009 until he appeared in this debate. User:Costmary is another pro-astrology SPA dating back to February, and perhaps the instigator of the present situation. User:Robertcurrey is an astrologer with an admitted COI. Did I leave someone out? You all are starting to push the envelope of disruption and need official warnings. I assure you if you continue down this path it will not end well. The community at large does not have tolerance for this kind of disruptive POV pushing.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see my name has just been added to the list as a "pro-astrology SPA" with the suggestion that I am "perhaps the instigator of the present situation". Presumably because I tried to make some agreed upon edits earlier today. I take exception to that, but encourage you take this to mediation or arbitration if you want to question my involvement. I welcome the idea of discussing this with others who are not biased towards or against astrology. What I have publicly instigated here is the call to revise the lede, to remove the nonsense comments and bigotry that prevented the subject from getting an appropriate introduction to what it essentially is, and to remove the inaccurate comments that sought to highlight someone's idea of "irony". I joined in February in the belief that Wikipedia welcomed input from those who are informed enough to comment, and that my efforts to improve the weaknesses of this article would be welcomed. It has been a disheartening and eye-opening experience for me. I now realise why most reputable scholars would not dirty their hands with the attempt to make this page credible, and why it is likely to remain shamefully innaccurate - to the detriment of all who have made genuine efforts to pool collective knowledge and provide an honest overview of the subject. Yes I know a lot about astrology but I am not pushing a pro-astrology POV. Take the trouble to read my earlier comments and the supporting arguments, and note that I have made various suggestions to try and obtain consensus, ranging from omitting the pseudoscience word in the introduction, or incorporating it in various ways, including the suggestion "Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1]" - so how is this "pushing an astrology-POV"? I have pushed for consensus - please point me to the areas where you have striven to make recommendations that might possibly find consensus on this highly contentious issue or where I have recommended anything that is not scholarly correct and properly supported? It is those who are simply criticising, undoing, and failing to discuss, that are acting destructively hereCostmary (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Trolling and similar disruptive behaviour are not tolerated within the Wikipedia community. Aquirata (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Ironic statement that. Are you suggesting that I am trolling? You've decided to escalate to personal attacks now? Not a good idea. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Regarding your allegations, Griswaldo, I can only speak for myself. I have not communicated with other editors, for or against, outside of this talk page. I entered the discussion after following this article and the talk page out of concern for what I perceived to be one-sided edits to this article. I assume other editors joined in for similar reasons or after noting the activity. All editors, irrespective of their views, make up the Wikipedia community, as long as they respect the objectives, rules and integrity of Wikipedia. Do you think that the Wikipedia community is just sceptical editors, yourself included? That is not so. By the way, I went to this page Yobol, who has not patticipated in this debate before, mentioned, WP:FTN#Pseudoscientific_status_of_astrology. It seems to me that sceptical editors are rallying like-minded editors to the debate here. Are such vote-getting practices accepted at Wikipedia? It seems dubious to me. Whatever, it is my hope that editors can lift themselves out of the foxhole to see this vote for what it is, an opportunity to gain closure on this contentious issue here. I am heartened to see Mystyplx reach out for a compromise and want thank others for their contributions to the debate. Erekint (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    I posted a notice about a discussion affecting an article mentioned in the 'Fringe theories' guideline at the 'Fringe theories' noticeboard, and I have no way of knowing who is watching the noticeboard. Why do you consider that to be a questionable action? -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yobol is actually the one who informed about the discussion at the sceptics noticeboard, where you opened up a heading "Pseudoscientific status of astrology" with the following information. Erekint (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.

I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.

I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)"

  • Disagree with the suggestion to introduce weasel words that support a fringe POV, of course.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    You are pushing your own fringe POV against accepted Wikipedia policy. Aquirata (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree It is not unusual for those who have knowledge of a subject to be interested in what appears on the pages of Wikipedia in their subject. These SMEs should be welcomed by the more general and veteran WP editors. The problem is that Wikipedia seems almost as a policy to make no distinction between good science and bad science, and to disregard rational fallacies such as straw man arguments and argument by authority, the same way that biblical scholars overlooked blatant inconsistencies and fallacies in the Bible. In either case, mainstream science journals or the Bible, it is only the citation of authority that counts and the godlike authority of the publication in both cases is taken to be equally infallible. This is a serious flaw, passed down from Biblical creationist scholars to fundamentalist WP editors, that does not help forward motion in the resolution of disputes. There is no substitute for critical thinking and the diligent consideration of scientific discourse. Given a critical approach, there is no good scientifically verifiable evidence that astrology is a pseudoscience, but there is some good scientific evidence that goes contrary to this fundamentalist belief held by the majority of scientists. More and much better quality research is needed and the pseudoscience claim in this article certainly does not help the global effort to do so. "Classic" is very overreaching because in classical times astrology was a science. If anything astrology is a protoscience technology because it has generated many scientific concepts used today. Astrology is very under appreciated and this article needs a lot of work to improve it. My two cents. I have read the discussion above and I can see that both Petersburg and Erekint have made a great effort to bring the sides together based on the current WP polity. This demonstration of impartiality is something we should all emulate as best we can going forward and I will support it. Apagogeron (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. If I were naïvely turning up at this page for the first time, the suggestion might attract a bit of sympathy, but in reality this suggestion comes at the end of years of POV-pushing, and patience has long since been exhausted... and the epic pov-pushing texts will continue regardless of how this vote turns out. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Yes it will by the likes of you who have been doing it for years. Aquirata (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Eh? I cannot fathom what you're trying to do. Your comment is wholly fictional, but it's still a personal attack. Please try to assume good faith and please don't make stuff up. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is what Fringe theories:Pseudoscience says. Why argue with that? If you want to represent astrology differently, go and argue with the policy. Petersburg (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I've been watching this from a distance after a recent posting on WP:FTN. Suggestions like these and in the multiple threads above show a clear (? willful) lack of understanding of our policies here on Wikipedia and I echo Griswaldo's suggestion that these WP:SPAs drop the stick and should receive formal warnings should they continue to waste everyone's time here with these types of suggestions. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yobol (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    It is you who should receive a formal warning by suddenly appearing in a vote out of nowhere. Please recede to that distance you have come from. Aquirata (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    It is generally considered a good thing to get outside opinion on issues that are in dispute. I should remind of you of our expectations that editors behave with civility, and note, on a talk page of an article of all places, it is against our behavioral guidelines to ask people to leave a page purely due to their stance on a subject. Yobol (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. In any case, this 'proposal' (or the attempt to implement it by a vote) has no validity within Wikipeda policy. If you wish to change such policy, this isn't the place to do it. And no, astrology isn't a 'protoscience', and nor is it a 'craft' - it is an obsolete and meaningless pseudoscience kept going by the faith of its proponents (and no doubt by the profits earned by the 'prophets'). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    What in the world are you talking about? If you're not familiar with pseudoscience policies or astrology, this is not the place for you. Nobody is trying to change policy, we're trying to implement it against the wills of pseudo-skeptics such as yourself. Aquirata (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree Though if the "scientific community" is to be directly referenced then I'd say the adverb should be stronger than "generally" ... something at least more like "widely." Mystylplx (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Further note: The arbitration committee said "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information [that they are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community] and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If we are simply going to ignore the advice of arbitration committees then why bother to have them? Mystylplx (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    What the arbitration committee said about articles like this one, was that "they may be categorized as pseudoscience". They did not say "they may be categorized as something scholars generally call pseudoscience." Opposing this suggestion, and insisting that we categorize this as pseudoscience (and not as something scholars generally call pseudoscience) is much more faithful to the arbitration decision than what you are suggesting. When the arbitration comittee said "generally considered pseudoscience" they were not offering any directives, simply opining on a large category of subjects. When they said what they said about categorization they were offering a directive. In other words this line of reasoning that you and others are suggesting is completely off the mark. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    "Categorized as pseudoscience" obviously refers to the Wikipedia category Pseudoscience, other wise they wouldn't have needed the "and." There's two things being discussed, whether or not the article belongs in the category pseudoscience and the phrasing of a sentence in the lead. The arbitration decision says it should go in the Wikipedia category pseudoscience and that the article should properly include the information that the scientific community generally considers it a pseudoscience. It's the only way of reading what the arbitration committee said that makes any kind of sense. Otherwise why would they need a second grouping at all? Mystylplx (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    You need a reminder on what categorization means. It means belonging to a category, in this case the Pseudoscience category. See the bottom of the page if you haven't noticed it yet. It is already there. Aquirata (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Yes and things belong to categories because of what they are. An apple is a fruit, for instance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    No. First, arguing by analogy is pseudo-scientific. Second, belonging to a category and "is" are two different things in Wikipedia. Read the policy. Aquirata (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The arbitration decision has no clear directive on this. The one directive it does have suggests that calling it pseudoscience is not out of bounds at all. What you all are quoting is not a directive at all. Case closed. That's my last reply to you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. While I don't believe astrology is pseudoscience, it's hard to argue with the fact that most scientists consider it so. It's also a fact that most scientists know dick all about astrology because they reject it out of hand and they would jeopardize their own career if they studied it. I don't like that fringe policy that a few people are quoting here, but agree with Mystylplx that this wording was decided by higher-ups and the best we can do is follow their guidance. Aquirata (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Note: Editors such as WLU, Griswaldo, Bobrayner, Yobol (where the heck were you until now?) and AndyTheGrump should be ashamed of themselves for going directly against policy. They should all be sent back to the sandbox and let out only after their temper tantrum is over. Aquirata (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    If you are going to accuse editors of 'going against policy', can you at least explain which one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    The fringe science one everybody has been quoting WP:FRINGE. Of course if you're not familiar with it, you shouldn't be here at all. Aquirata (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    What, the one that specifically states that astrology "may be categorized as pseudoscience"? I'm familiar enough with it - and you don't get to decide who takes part in this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Without rehashing old arguments, I have put my case why pseudoscience is no longer appropriate or relevant in connection with astrology. However, I have been repeatedly reminded by editors that Wikipedia guidelines must be followed right or wrong and this proposed statement is doing precisely that. Hard-line sceptics who wish to ‘sex up’ Wikipedia’s guidelines to impose their personal point of view are sowing the seeds of an endless and unnecessary dispute here and elsewhere. Please consider the example of outspoken astrology sceptic, astronomer Carl Sagan who warned that “statements contradicting borderline, folk or pseudoscience that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more harm than good”. Robertcurrey (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely disagree. Astrology is an unequivocal pseudoscience - this is amply backed by reliable sources. I will revert any change to the article that dilutes this characterization. I am dismayed by the proliferation of single purpose meatpuppets on this article. It is starkly obvious that these people are coordinating offsite. Skinwalker (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you that "it is starkly obvious that these people are coordinating offsite." Just how did you suddenly appear here in the middle of a vote without prior discussion? Aquirata (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Becasue its been rasied at a notice board, I mean how unfair is it to ask the whole of the comuity to come here and comment?Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Astrology is a pseudoscience according to science (one question do any astronemers aay its not?).Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    It looks to me like you are agreeing while disagreeing. What meaningful difference is there between the statement "Astrology is generally considered to be a pseudoscience by the scientific community." And your statement "Astrology is a pseudoscience according to science...?" Mystylplx (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Not at all the scietific community regards Astrolergy as a psedoscience. That is not the same as saying that its generaly rearded as such. If there is no differance then why not then say that "The scientific community regards astrolergy as a psedoscience" if tehy are the saem, can we all agree to that?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    Slatersteven - you asked (one question do any astronomers say its not?) I have debated astrology with two sceptical astronomy professors - both of whom had some surprisingly out of date beliefs about astrology. However, I have also met a number of astronomers who don’t regard astrology as a pseudoscience, but to reveal any support for astrology is unlikely to be a good career move given the groupthink. I used to attend lectures by Dr Percy Seymour. He was Senior Planetarium Lecturer at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich (1972 – 1977) and later Principal Lecturer in Astronomy at the University of Plymouth (1977 – 2003). His special area of study was magnetic fields in the Milky Way Galaxy. He wrote eight books on astronomy and cosmology. One of them entitled The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Tuning to the Music of the Planets. Robertcurrey (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you rather then arguing form personel beleife you have tried to find a source. What does he actualy have to say on the subject? Does he says its a psedoscience or a genuine science, or just that there is some basis of science behind some of its assumptions or methodology?Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Slatersteven Dr Seymour developed a model to describe the mechanism behind astrology. This interview from 1989 may not include his more recent research. In outline, his model is based on the tidal tugs of all the planets in addition to the Sun and Moon which disrupt the Earth’s magnetosphere which affects the human neural network. It works through the gravitational effects of the planets which are magnified by what Seymour calls ‘magneto tidal resonance’ to affect the sunspot cycle. There are more recent studies including one by a NASA scientist: Chin Cheh Hung Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity & Solar Tides caused by Planetary Activity (2007) and Wainwright Jupiter's influence, New Scientist Issue 2439, (20 March 2004). Current theory indicates a correlation between peaks in the sunspot cycle and planetary line-ups. I have commented on this earlier and was informed that because these studies do not specifically mention astrology, they cannot be cited as this obvious connection as a possible mechanism for astrology would be considered OR.
To find out more read and see a list of sources read my post on this page dated Robertcurrey (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2011 in the thread Proposed introduction - does it have consensus or is it breaking policy? I am delighted to respond to your question, but I don’t want to inflame an argument as it is now time to find a solution. You are most welcome to correspond on my talk page and if it is not too long, I will get back to you as soon as I can. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Black Falcon, as you entered this discussion quite recently, you may not have read much that had been discussed before. (I see we now have a lot of new sceptics coming into this page who might be even less informed of the arguments.) However, I don’t propose rehashing arguments, but this is the most concise way I can respond to your comments.
First, your comparisons of astrology to the Flat Earth belief and a creation myth are weak analogies. Though these beliefs have ancient origins, to use astrology in this analogy, you need to find a field where there are schools, conferences, thousands of book titles, software programs and peer reviewed research journals. This field should also be supported by many academics like a senior astronomer and astronomy author (as discussed above). Contrary to popular opinion, astrology is not a belief system. It is falsifiable and research in the last fifty years and especially recently, has resulted in scientific evidence supporting astrology and no studies contesting this evidence despite many attempts by sceptical groups. I have documented this earlier in this discussion. See my comments on this page at 14:18, 14 March 2011.
Second, any question of pseudoscience is in my view now redundant in any description of modern astrology (for reasons explained on this page). So, if the scientific view is to be included, the wording should be no stronger than ‘belief’’ since there is no evidence that many in the scientific community have studied astrology or are familiar with recent research and there are no valid tests and no superior alternative theories to support this belief. However, the correct word belief has been exaggerated to consider – suggesting an informed opinion which is manifestly untrue. However this extra spin more than justifies the conceit of giving popular 'scientific' opinion the unequal advantage that you seek. Robertcurrey (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Astrology is a classic example of a superstitious pseudoscientific belief and practice. We have numerous policies and an ArbCom decision that justify calling it what it is, and we have ample RS backing for such an assertion. It will take more than this truckload of astrologers who have suddenly met up here to overturn this. It would require policy changes. The astrologers here who have ridiculed the ArbCom decision and say ArbCom made a mistake need to take their campaign elsewhere. Use your own websites to make your claims and advertise your services so you can continue to fraudulently collect money from hapless victims of this superstition. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. When RS consistently declare it to no longer be a pseudoscience and declare it to be scientifically legitimate, then this article will be revised according to the sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*Disagree. Reliable sources clearly show that astrology is pseudoscience; so that's what the article should say. It's simple and precise. It really doesn't have to be difficult. I'm quite happy to have a separate statement of what astrologers believe; and if any astrologers dare to propose a mechanism for their belief, I would happily mention that in the article too, contrasted against real, evidence-based physics. bobrayner (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is your second vote... ;)Mystylplx (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies; because somebody bizarrely moved an older thread to the bottom of the page so it came after the thread I created, I thought it was yet another new thread on the same subject. It's an easy mistake to make given the large number of similar threads & restarts. Will happily strike either of my !votes if it'll actually make a difference to anyone... bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was something of the sort. No harm no foul. Mystylplx (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Stricken. email bobrayner bobrayner (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree Astrology is not a science at all. We don't put in the article on Hinduism that "hinduism is generally considered pseudoscience". Astrology is not in a category where the pseudoscience/science distinction makes sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Astrology is about the clearest example of pseudoscience known. It makes predictions based upon objective criteria and is therefore testable and falsifiable, and it has been falsified over and over. We have lots of great sources showing that. People who refuse to accept that are just playing word games to try to promote a view. DreamGuy (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Generating falsifiable predictions does not in itself make something a science. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to this page DreamGuy. I agree that astrology is falsifiable. If it has been “falsified over and over”, please could back up your claim with a citation of what you consider to be the best test as we have not had one so far. Please note that anecdotal evidence, magic tricks, sun sign tests and tests with small sample sizes that could produce random results are not relevant here. This has been discussed at least twice before (see my comments at 17:56, 8 March 2011) – please check previous discussions so time is not wasted and please no links to lists – a citation of a single test or two are sufficient. If you find in your quest that the tests that you believe existed do not exist, you should vote to accept that astrology is considered a pseudoscience rather than the unsubstantiated and authoritarian claim that it is a pseudoscience. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is a pseudoscience. Just because one or two scientists embarrass themselves and pretend that it has a legitimate foundation doesn't change reality, and weasel words won't help the editorial quality of the article. The best way to deal with scientific dissent on the matter (there is scientific dissent on every matter, that's the point) is to introduce astrology definitively as a pseudoscience, then cite specific examples where scientists have disagreed with the overwhelming majority. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Refuse to vote again in this process, which is turning into a joke. This needs to go to arbitration! The informative content of this page is being vandalised by editors who are fixated on the importance of one word and have hidden previous discussion that explored more relevant issues concerning the lede, which had obtained consensus. In the process the views of myself and other contributors such as Fsolda, ninly, Gary PH, Robertcurry and Hans Adler have been ignored, as if the great deal of time and effort involved in trying to find a suitable point of agreement means nothing.

The reason for this whole discussion was to find a consensus on a more appropriate lede to the article – it was not to start an edit war amongst those who either do or don’t want the word pseudoscience mentioned; as if that is all that matters. As a reminder this is being proposed as the lede, which includes amendments which have a consensus of agreement (in the detailed discussion above) for being more informative, more elegantly expressed, and better supported by credible references:

Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs founded on the notion that the celestial bodies can explain destiny, personality, human affairs, and other earthly matters.(1,2) Emphasis is placed on the relative positions of the sun, moon, and planets; with the system also allowing reference to stars(3), visible phenomena such as comets, and mathematically calculated points of interest. A natal chart, also known as a horoscope, is a map of the universe centered on the 'native', which is the subject whose environment is to be studied. This shows the relative positions of the celestial bodies within the zodiac signs and astrological houses, with reference to their astrological aspects, and various other mathematical frames of reference which are used for astrological interpretation.
Astrology combines information from the studies of astronomy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism and mysticism, and is traditionally described as “a mathematical art, subject to the principles of natural philosophy”.(4)Historically astrology was regarded as a very technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.(5)
Because of its ancient history and legacy of cultural influence, Eastern nations consider that astrology is entitled to respect as a trusted body of knowledge.(6) However, astrology has always been a controversial subject, because the extent of its determinism has been questioned and debated, as well as the limits of its reliability in practical application. Astrology lost its standing as a science in the 17th-18th centuries when it became disowned by Enlightenment thinkers.
1) Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0684132931. http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20. Retrieved 2009-12-02.
2) Price, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion. Oxford University Press, 2003
3) The Greek phrase plánētes astéres 'wandering stars' was applied to the seven visible planets (including the Sun and Moon) because of their observable movement against the 'fixed stars'. All were 'stars' in the Classical sense.
4) Lauren Kassell, ‘Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (2010) 67–69 (quoting John Dee’s definition in the preface to Henry Billingsley’s translation of Euclid’s Elements of geometrie (1570)), See also 17th century astrologer William Ramesey’s similar definition , set out in the introduction to his Astrologiae Restaurata (1653), where he refers to the older definition of Averroes, saying “he affirms Astrology to be a Mathematical Art; and this is acknowledged by all the Judicious and learned; neither do any but Fools and Novices make it a distinct Art or Science of itself, but a part of Astronomy, Physics and Natural Philosophy, which make up one entire Liberal Science; this is well known to the Learned; yet for the satisfaction of some weak headed Momuses have I thus plainly delivered my self, who carp and rail at what they are ignorant of.”
5) Lauren Kassell, ‘Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (2010) 67–69.
6) Astrology is a science: Bombay HC - The Times of India, online at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Astrology-is-a-science-Bombay-HC/articleshow/7418795.cms (retrieved 08/02/2011); Astrology is a Trusted Science rules India’s Supreme Court – What is the Significance for Western Astrologers? APAI, Spring Bulletin, 2011, #66; online at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/astrology_a_trusted_science.html (retrieved 08/02/2011).

At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1] Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific".[7]

These are sensible suggestions for edits that give a more rounded and informative introduction to the subject. All have been discussed in detail previously, with justification for the finer points. But it looks to me like many here don't care what the page says as long as the focus remains on one controversial word. So please someone, take this to arbitration, I earlier requested that this should go to mediation but the other editor involved refused to participate in mediation so arbitration seems to be the only way to go now.

(Earlier today I tried to make some of the generally agreed changes - these were simply undone by Kwami, just as he has undone all the previous edits that found consensus. I would be very happy to have my own history of edits put forward for arbitration if Kwami's thoughtless 'undo' edits can be reviewed as part of that process). I will now try to make the edit again in the hope that Kwami does not follow his usual habit of undoing everything that amends his own preferred content.Costmary (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I've posted at AN/I with the hope that an admin or two might have a look at what is going on here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE may be a more optimal venue - these people would probably be issued official warnings per discretionary sanctions. Still, let's see what plays out at ANI. Skinwalker (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I was also thinking arbitration; could be quicker, less drama. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not sure mediation offers much hope, given the way things have gone, and it would just create even more reams of the stuff we've already seen on this talkpage. AE may be more appropriate where the line has been pointed out and somebody has unambiguously crossed it. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take this to arbitration. I would be more thanwilling to submit to that. I asked for administration help earlier and the response we got was to thrash this out through discussion (hence all the discussion which has now been hidden as a "waste of time"). I also proposed mediation, but that was denied. I would like to suggest that the history of undos and hides by Kwami and WLU be examined for showing their bias against allowing informative corrections and amendments, whilst others are straining hard to find proposals that might break through the deadlock to find common agreement. Costmary (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that both sides are getting entrenched in their positions. Another edit war is looming on the horizon simply because we are unable to interpret an existing policy on the most contentious issue. Therefore I am in support of arbitration on the matter in order to save us from useless arguing. Petersburg (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The pseudoscience issue is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned but it is blocking the ability to edit the introduction - by those who insist that this point must be raised to priority importance. We can initiate an arbitration request for clarification on the pseudoscience ruling, and hopefylly gain external clarification on whether the term must be used in the article, may be used in the article, must be in the lede (twice), and whether we must say astrology "is" a pseudoscience or can flow with approved text by saying "generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community."
The request template asks for a "List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request". I am willing to be a party - anyone else willing to be named to help bring this point of confusion to an end?Costmary (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Full arbitration is not necessary, and I am pretty sure a case would be rejected as premature. However, arbitration enforcement, or if that doesn't work a motion piggybacking on an earlier pseudoscience case should be enough. Hans Adler 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is Dean's Time Twin Study?

No policy, guideline or source-based reason to continue this discussion. Closed by WLU Reopened Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Research section, it states "...For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics. ..." and refers to Dean and Kelly's paper [2]

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

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

  1. ^ Paul R. Thagard, ‘Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience’; Philosophy of Science Association, 1978, Volume 1, edited by P.D. Asquith and I. Hacking: http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html
  2. ^ Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?

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

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

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

The subjects were born 5 or less minutes apart (not 5 or more...) and many of them were born at virtually the exact same instant and thus had identical charts in every way. And astrology wouldn't need to show "identical" results to prove its efficacy--just similar enough to be statistically significant. IOW people with identical charts should at least be more similar to each other than to a random sample of the population. Without that being true it debunks the entire field of astrology. I.e. if the charts don't mean anything then they don't mean anything. Mystylplx (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Dean's paper has not yet been published but I anticipate that it will happen imminently.
I emailed Dr. Dean requesting detailed information on his Time Twin study. On 14th June 2010 he responded: "The data you refer to has now been updated, with a more-than-doubling of its number of subjects and number of variables. But putting this huge database into a form that can be analysed (not every variable is available for every subject) is taking huge amounts of time. Until this stage is completed, and the analyses finished, there is essentially no results that can be reported."
The highly cited preliminary results of Dean's time twins study, which were touched upon in little more than two paragraphs in his lengthy psi article, leave a lot of questions unanswered with regard to scientific premise, method, and analysis. I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it.
Dean's correspondence suggests that he is attempting to develop the complex parameters required to capture the results of astrologically associated outcomes. For a fair test, this would be the necessary method over the crude approach involving only a few very specific outcomes that were suggested in his psi article.Apagogeron (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"Apagogeron, two points regarding your statement "I don't think Dean ever intended such a minor, indirect reference to become the icon of scientific refutation that many astrology critics have tried to make of it." First, the authors offer a rather firm conclusion in the 2003 article, as cited in my comment above. It is therefore hard to suggest they meant nothing by it. It would be good if they considered in their present work to make their methodology sensitive to the traditional horoscopic astrology of the hindus, which has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Importantly, as described in my comment above, Hindu astrology is very sensitive to the exactness of time. Second, you are right about the grasping for straws of astrology critics to denounce astrology, including this flawed study. It is evident in this dictionary article, for instance, that many editors here gladly accept the statement of the 186 scientists as one more nail in the coffin of astrology's credibility while at the same time ignoring Feyerabend's thoughtful criticism of it. The key point being that ignorance suffused by arrogance is not a helpful approach for the acquisition of knowledge.
To study astrology, it is helpful to know what it really is. In a few words, astrology can be seen to be a study of human karma and consciousness. As such, causality in astrology is seen to be sensitive to human conduct, including acts or thoughts aimed at appealing to the the grace of the divine through e.g. penance, sacrifice, chanting, meditation and prayer. In other words, it is believed that the expression of negative karma can be modified by our own conduct. This is why hindu or vedic astrology (jyotisha) is considered the sixth limb of the Vedic scriptures, also known as the science of human enlightenment. How can that interaction be scientifically captured by simplistic correlation studies? Due to the complexity of astrology, it does not lend itself well to a study of simplistic mecahnical causality, like it were supposed to be a part of the physics of crude matter as some preceptors of materialism preach. Astrology is a study first and last of human consciosuness. In some sense, while mass and energy form an identity in modern materalist physics, we can say that energy is one qualitative octave above matter. Consciousness, the domain of idealism, while in some sense a part of an identity triad including matter and energy, is, in turn, one qualitative octave above energy. While the three are fully integrated and cannot be separated, in some sense, the qualitative distance between matter and conciousness is signficant. Citing one great vedic master (and expanding) "as matter and energy cannot judge mind, but mind can judge matter and energy, it is the mind that is most important." The conclusion: "idealism is superior to materialism" as an epistemological framework for understanding the universe. In short, a more nuanced approach is needed to either gain confidence in or the rejection of such a rarified field of study as astrology is. This is brought out by the fact that in life, an unkind word can have greater negative and long lasting impact on a person than a physical blow. One can sense some crude beginning of a comprehension of this fact in the Dean et al study, but even it is full of shortcomings as noted above, suggesting a rather typical limit in the understanding of the subject matter. Finally, astrology, as a field of study and practice, is full of contradictions and confusions, giving ample scope for misuse and error by lesser practitioners. In this a determined effort to enhance the rules of interpretation and prediction through scientific study would certainly be very helpful. Precluding effective cooperation seems be the important episemological gap, which is based on the fact that competent astrologers of the east are beholden to idealism while scientists of the west have a materialistic outlook on life. An amuzing afterthought, who should really subject the other to the test of the natural laws of human consciousness? Erekint (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Dean himself was an astrologer and 'true believer' who wrote a book about astrology where, among other things, he advocated the scientific study of astrology because he believed it would be proven accurate in this way. After 40 years of various studies into astrology Dean is no longer a believer. Mystylplx (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It may be unwise to assume Dr Dean’s position on astrology, Mystylplx. He is now a CSI (formerly CSICOP) fellow – an organisation where the party line has a history of being uncompromising with subjects like astrology even in the face of evidence (see Ertel & Irving The Tenacious Mars Effect, 1996 or sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins (co-founder of CSICOP)). However, many astrologers have found Dean to be very helpful and none of his own studies including his very promising study Unaspected Planets, have been completed. A case in point is the phantom Time Twin Study (forthcoming) – which is still much trumpeted and widely cited by sceptics – but it now turns out that seven years after it was originally promised in a paper on Astrology and Psi, it was never published and will not be published, but that he will submit entirely new results with new additional data. Robertcurrey (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I have no objection to Robertcurrey's proposal. Dean's "time twins" is minimally reported (essentially only two paragraphs) and it lacks the proper qualifications of full disclosure of where the source data came from, possible issues with the astrological premise, alternative hypotheses, visible analysis, and so on. It's an unfair claim.
My concern is that Dean's claim is already so well known and loved by astrology critics that, despite its obvious flaws and lack of credibility, there will always be many people who will see it's not included and put it back. There aren't any fair studies to replace it with and no one wants to wait for the promised article.
The "time twins" is an interesting, and perhaps unique, case where the study is so lacking in substance that it has managed to slip though the cracks of normal scientific discourse, which gives the false impression of acceptance. The whole astrological time twins belief, as well as the famous Dean time twins anti-claim, may have no relevance at all to astrology other than their dubious quality of good urban legends. As I've mentioned to Dean, I'm sure there are skeptics on both sides of this issue concerning anything as highly deterministic as time twins, especially as Dean conceives of them. Any mention of Dean's time twins should at least mention the anticipated complete study on which it is based, which is still forthcoming. Apagogeron (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll add that the main criticism I'd offer to Dean's time twins test is that the design does not take into account astrological "eminence." The matches were made on the basis of things such as illnesses, marriage, etc., which from a planetary perspective would be nearly random because numerous factors could contribute to them. You'd need a ginormous amount of data to even come near finding an astrological effect. To overcome this problem, the study should test for a convergence of eminence, as other successful astrological research has done. At this point in astrological research eminence criteria should be a requirement. A good design would be to have each subject take a standard personality test, such as the CPI, and see if there is a convergence of scores that co-varies with convergence to twin state. This would show an eminence effect, if there is one. However, we don't know if the participants ever took a personality test because Dean doesn't say and he does not reveal his source. He must cite his source to avoid this criticism and the possibility that he's just making it all up! He should find a way to test for eminence, or else the test has very little value because the known methods that produce results need to be part of the design. Apagogeron (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, I intend to amend the Research Section by removing the sentence "For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics.[59]" and the words "other" from the following sentence. If anyone has an objection, please state your case. Robertcurrey (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we save some of the pro-astrology contributions?

Given that many of the editors above have been banned, and that the article is protected for a month, can the rest of us agree that some of their suggestions are nonetheless worthwhile? I trust that I won't be seen as having a COI if I add an astrologer's perspective to the article! Basically, I was thinking of treating this as, say, the MOS, which is protected but which people edit after proposing new wording on the talk page. How about I propose some changes here; if they're not acceptable, just reword them or delete them entirely. (That's one way of preventing this discussion from ballooning out of control: We agree from the beginning that any of these suggestions that does not improve the article is simply deleted, with the justification in the edit summary rather than on the page.) Or support or object to them in whole or in part. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I think these are all from Costmary:

  • changed: fate – given the link, it maybe should be destiny
  • changed: the placement of the seven planets – we need to link this (seven planets or classical planets), and maybe explain it on the page. (It's also only historically accurate, and perhaps should be reworded.)
  • changed: relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac – link signs and add houses?
  • changed (partial): a combination of basic astronomy, mysticism, and divination – add some or all of the following (don't want it too wordy, though): numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, and remove divination
  • add: some mention of horoscope in the lede, though the proposed wordings have been heavy on jargon and not very informative.
  • added: Historically astrology was regarded as a technical and learned tradition, sustained in royal courts, cultural centers, and medieval universities, and closely related to the studies of alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. [ref Kassell]
  • deleted: Some astrologers see astrology as a broadly symbolic language, one in which only general themes of life, love, and death are implicated; others see more direct and specific influences on human and mundane affairs. – I have never understood what this was supposed to mean, and the astrologers don't seem enamored with it either.
  • added: Astrology has always been a controversial subject. Even within the field, the extent of its determinism and of its application have been debated.[citation needed] – Add a note on the opposition of various religious traditions (free will, etc.).
  • added: Astrology lost its standing in the 17th–18th centuries when it was disowned by Enlightenment thinkers / the Age of Reason.
  • added: In the latter half of the 20th century astrology experienced a resurgence of popular interest as a founding component of the New Age movement.

This is a great idea. Both fair and good for the article. Thanks for extracting it. I support adding them, and any other non-pseudoscience-related information, either through draft/admin addition or non-protected editing once the PP is lifted. Ocaasi c 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me, apart from the last - we need a source that (a) shows evidence for the 'resurgence' and (b) states the significance of astrology to New Age thinking - though that might be difficult, given the difficulty of establishing what 'New Age' really means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I know sources were supplied somewhere; I remember reading that astrology was fringe even in the popular conception as late as the 1950s. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What exactly are you looking to source in that regard? The the New Age movement is intimately tied to astrology as the term "New Age" refers to the astrological Age of Aquarius. Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. (Silly me.) [36] — kwami (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there are proposals to completely rewrite the lede, but only agreement to these changes themselves, so I added most of them in. I didn't add the Kassell ref, since there are comments below about too many refs in the lede. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Lede

Thanks kwami. Before addressing costmary’s and your proposals for an enhanced version of the lede – in which I was not involved, I would like to propose an alternative. In my view though the proposed joint changes were mostly great improvements, the original lede is confusing, too wordy, inaccurate, contentious (even among astrologers), cumbersome and confusing and appears to be the result of years of argument and compromise. And here I am not even considering any issues of bias.

I would like to put forward what I consider a clearer description that embraces astrology initially in a very general way. The second paragraph would describe the role of the planets, houses, aspects and the zodiac within the horoscope. This is followed by the history to modern times. It is in this section that Sun Sign astrology and the pseudoscience issue should be addressed.

Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial phenomena and life, entities and geophysical processes.[1] The field is a combination of astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, numerology, geometry, psychology, symbolism, mysticism and divination. For most astrologers, the practice of astrology is more of an art and a craft than a science. Such astrologers work with a model of what they consider a coherent and meaningful pattern within the Cosmos. By translating this symbolic language, practitioners analyze the potential within any birth or launch moment and forecast on the basis of the solar, lunar and planetary cycles.


1) Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 1. New York: Scribner.

I don't believe that the original opening line was a verbatim quote from Pingree, but I believe that my comments are in line with his. I would like costmary's advice and ask that she contact me directly on my talk page on this and other matters.

Other than the Pingree quote, most standard references seem to follow an outdated model which states that the planets ‘influence’ which enables ‘predictions’. However, this does not fit with current practice which tends to favour the Hermetic maxim – as above, so below or the Jungian/Pauli model of synchronicity.

At this stage kwami, given the controversial and specialist nature of this field, I can only see advantage in your proposal of having editors post onto the talk page before editing. This does not solve the problem that the experts who might be able to contribute to any prior discussion have been banned and if I am not banned, acting as a 'guardian' of this and other astrology pages is not part of my life plan. I hope that others with expertise in astrology can get involved in the future. Robertcurrey (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence presupposes that there is a correlation, and I think it's a little too general - there are significant celestial phenomena which affect "life" but are very much the domain of real astrophysics rather than astrology. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
bobrayner I take your point that correlation is debatable. However, such correlations exist: Besides objective evidence for the Sun/Moon/tidal connection and other areas of natural astrology (that you classify exclusively as astrophysics, though has long been part of astrology) and the Gauquelin studies show a correlation between planetary positions at birth and eminence in specific areas that have been replicated.
How about: "Astrology is the study of and search for correlations between celestial phenomena and life, events and physical processes on Earth?" Robertcurrey (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

Since Robert Currey has proposed an alternate lede, and since you all seem geared up to discuss the lead let me post some intro paragraphs from other tertiary sources here as a point of comparison.

  • Encyclopedia Britannica - "Astrology - type of divination that involves forecasting of earthy and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, an the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science."
  • Oxford's A Dictionary of Astronomy - "The supposed influence of the relative positions of the planets on people's personalities and events in their lives. In its modern form astrology is a pseudoscience, but in ancient times astrology and astronomy were intertwined. Often, the motive for keeping observational records was astrological. Ancient Chinese records of celestial events, from which the fortunes of entire dynasties were divined, are now of great value in the study of historical eclipses, novae, and comets."
  • The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science - "Astrology is best defined as the set of theories and practices interpreting the positions of the heavenly bodies in terms of human and terrestrial implications. (The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes.) The subject—and therefore its study—is fascinating, difficult, and often paradoxical. Although inextricably entangled with what are now demarcated as science, magic, religion, politics, psychology, and so on, astrology cannot be reduced to any of these. The historical longevity and cultural diversity of astrology are far too great for it to have been precisely the same thing in all times and places, yet it has always managed to reconstitute itself as much the same thing in the minds of its practitioners, public, and opponents alike. These points have particular relevance in relation to historians of science, who until recent decades predominantly analyzed astrology anachronistically as a “pseudo-science,” the human meanings of which could largely be derived from its lack of epistemological credentials."
  • The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - "Up to the seventeenth century astrology overlapped with astronomy and cosmology . All studied the movements of heavenly bodies, assuming a Ptolemaic model of a finite universe composed of concentric circles with a motionless earth (neither rotating nor revolving) at the centre. Astrology is associated mainly with theories of celestial influences, understood as causal forces literally flowing down on to the static earth and bringing about all aspects of meteorological and biological change—winds, tides, and seasons, and generation, growth, corruption, and death. Astrology found a place in the deterministic view of nature woven into ancient philosophical systems—Aristotelian, Platonic, and Stoic—and their medieval and Renaissance derivatives. From antiquity, astrological practice supported fatalism , especially with the entry into medieval western Europe of Arabic sources. Casting horoscopes and ‘fortune-telling’, with its claims to relate a detailed pattern of the heavenly bodies at birth to all future events of one's life, was accused of denying free will, but condemnations did little to lessen astrology's popularity. Once the earth was shown to be a rotating and revolving planet, once an infinite universe replaced a finite one, and once genetics placed the causes for biological diversity and specificity within the organism rather than in the stars, there could be no scientific foundation for astrology whatsoever."

While none of these tertiary sources are identical in their treatment of astrology, I think there are some common threads that are worth noting. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I see several elements of those descriptions I think would be beneficial here. The EB calls it a "type of divination". That's an excellent opening. The DoA notes in its modern form it is a pseudoscience, and the OCHMS says similarly that scientists analyzed astrology anachronistically as a pseudoscience, a point we should perhaps make more clearly. I left out the free-will criticism above, but still think we should mention it. The OCHMS speaks of human implications, and clarifies that "The positions have variously been considered signs and, more controversially, causes." This is a point the astrologers here keep making, and which I added a token mention of when restoring CostMary's additions, but we should probably make the point more prominently.
I added those four points here,[37] in case you'd like to review them. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is also worth bearing in mind that we are not really the place for innovative research, so to speak. Wikipedia aims to be a somewhat bland recounting of what reliable sources tell us - we are not the venue for the latest exciting theories coming out of astrological conferences (or whatever). Some style points for the lede - the current version is arguably too wordy and has too many paragraphs - three longer paras should do it just fine. Also, inline citations need to be kept out of the lede, which simply should be a summary of the main article content. Just in case anyone was tempted. Moreschi (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • <brain fart> In fact, we have 12 inline cites in the lede right now. They all need to go, this is stylistically horrid. Moreschi (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I realise it's not considered stylistically optimal, but that's simply a consequence of the ideal that a lede should summarise the rest of the article so it shouldn't need a cite for something which is discussed and sourced in more detail at a later point. Nonetheless, cites can be very useful where content is controversial/disputed; and this article's content has been subject to dispute for the last decade. If we could get Astrology to a position where the main problem is "Too many cites", then we would have achieved a herculean feat, and I'd be a very happy man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs)

Many thanks are due Griswaldo for supplying such excellent sources for comparison. In particular, the definition in The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science seems to be a superb model of relative completeness that manages to remain succinct and coherent. As Moreschi pointed out, the lede shouldn't exceed 3 paragraphs (without references), so it would seem prudent to adopt a similar strategy for this article. Perhaps a structure something like this:

  • 1st Paragraph: Definition of astrology with a brief but clear mention of its status as a pseudoscience.
  • 2nd Paragraph: General overview of history.
  • 3rd Paragraph: Discussion of astrology's multiregional/multicultural nature and development.

The current lede contains some information that is specifically related to astrologers rather than astrology; this could probably be moved down into the body of the article as it seems less directly relevant. Similarly, the (current) last paragraph of the lede is really an Etymology and should have a small separate section in the main body. Finally, since astrology predates Christianity and isn't generally a Christian practice, wouldn't it make sense for this article to use the more academic BCE/CE dating system, rather than the Euro-centric/Christian BC/AD convention?

I'm hoping that some of these suggestions might be helpful, but either way the lede should almost certainly be rewritten for brevity as well as overall flow and coherence. Doc Tropics 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It was easy enough to separate out the etymology to its own section and rearrange the rest into 3 paragraphs when I restored some of CostMary's additions (discussion above). We could probably add a more universal coverage, as you suggest, and also remove the stuff specific to astrologers. Do you have specific suggestions? And I agree w converting to CE notation. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Any definition of astrology that is based on a causal model in which the planets exert an influence or that astrology is about prediction, fatalism or determinism is at least 50 years out of date. (Natural astrology operates on this basis but this is only one part of the entire field.) From the Modern Text Book of Astrology (1956) by Margaret Hone “Certain traits of character and certain types of events appear to correlate with certain planetary relationships. He (the student) will be wise to drop the word influence which implies direct action.” She defines astrology as “a unique system of interpretation of the correlation of planetary action in human experience.” However, this does not cover mundane and natural astrology. (Hone's book remained the standard textbook used by astrology students in the UK into the '80s even though it was considered out of date at the time). Here are a few more definitions to consider, though I find them a little unsatisfactory in different ways:

"Modern astrology might be defined as the study of the movements of the Sun, Moon, and planets in relation to events on Earth, especially human personality and behavior; or, conversely, as the study of human affairs in relation to their cosmic environment. The central assumption of astrology is that the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the birth of an individual or the beginning of an enterprise are related in a significant and observable manner to the intrinsic character and later development of that individual or enterprise." Helen Weaver (translation) from Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. Reference:- Brau, Jean-Louis, Helen Weaver, Allan Edmands, Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology. New York, New American Library, 1982.

"Astrology is both the study of the ways in which significance for life on earth is located in celestial objects and the resulting practices. “ Dr Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, 2008, Hambledon Continuum.

"In this book 'astrology' means the study of correlations between living organisms (especially man) and extraterrestrial phenomena. It does not mean Lucky Stars or similar absurdities masquerading under the same name. Astrology has been a respectable subject for millennia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal." Dr Geoffrey Dean, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, (1977), Analogic. However, Dean's book also includes studies of natural astrology: earthquakes, sun spots, radio waves, climate.

Robertcurrey (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that has been mentioned several times. The lede currently says s.t. to that effect. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just reworded the first line, per Griswaldo's sources, to reflect the POV that these may be signs rather than causes, so that is now displayed much more prominently. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astrology/Archive_16&oldid=1030694729"