Misplaced Pages

Talk:Astrology: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:56, 29 September 2011 editKen McRitchie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users722 edits →Mechanisms review – proposed amendment for 1st part on Humanist and Sagan references← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:14, 7 January 2025 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,159 edits Reverting edit(s) by 103.78.19.115 (talk) to rev. 1261152724 by Isabelle Belato: Non-constructive edit (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{British English}}
|action1=PR
{{Article history|action1=PR
|action1date=00:35, 11 July 2006 |action1date=00:35, 11 July 2006

|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Astrology/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Astrology/archive1
|action1result=reviewed |action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=63133982 |action1oldid=63133982

|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
|action2date=14:40, 13 December 2006 |action2date=14:40, 13 December 2006
Line 11: Line 14:
|action2result=not promoted |action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=94014833 |action2oldid=94014833

|currentstatus=FFAC
|action3=GAN
|{{WP1.0|WPCD=yes}}
|action3date=22:39, 2 January 2014
|action3link=Talk:Astrology/GA1
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=588879749
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Social sciences and society
|}}
{{afd-merged-from|Mundane astrology|Mundane astrology|02 April 2012|date=April 2012}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Astrology|importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Occult|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top }}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=mid}}
}} }}
<!-- Primarily for the historical origins of astronomy -->
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
{{WikiProject Astrology |class=B |importance=Top }}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{WikiProject Occult |class=B |importance= }}
{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism |class=B |importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=High}}
}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|'''Please read before starting'''
Welcome to Misplaced Pages's Astrology article. This represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. ] to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a '']''. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid ]. The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
*''']''' ♦ ''']''' ♦ ''']''' ♦ '''].'''
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are 'No Original Research' (]) and 'Cite Your Sources' (]).

Since the nature of this topic has been deemed '''controversial''', all contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (]) and to abide by consensus (]). It is also important to''' discuss substantial changes here before making them''', supplying full citations when adding information. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.
|}
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" align="center"
!'''Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of ] (2006)'''
|-
| In December of 2006 the ] created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in ].
* ''']:''' ], 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 ].
* ''']:''' Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
|-


| '''The four groupings found at ]'''
* ''']:''' Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as ], may be so labeled and categorized as such without more consideration.
* ''']:''' Theories which have a following, such as ], 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 ], but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
* ''']''': Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
|}
{{recruiting}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 21 |counter = 36
|algo = old(15d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Astrology/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Astrology/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days |index=/Archive index |search=yes|
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 77: Line 47:
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}} }}
{{find}}
__TOC__

== Carlson review ==

] I have undone your edit which removed the following from the article:

<blockquote> Initially, the Carlson experiment was criticized as having a biased design that made the astrologers' tasks more difficult than they needed to be,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hamilton|first=Teressa|title=Critique of the Carlson study|journal=Astropsychological Problems|year=1986|issue=3|pages=9–12}}.</ref><ref>]. Eysenck's assessment was to find: "The conclusion does not follow from the data".</ref> but deeper flaws in method and analysis emerged. Carlson had disregarded his own stated criteria of evaluation, grouped data into irrelevant categories, rejected unexpected results without reporting them, and drew an illogical conclusion based on the ].<ref name="mcritchie">{{cite journal|last=McRitchie|first=Ken|title=Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment|journal=ISAR International Astrologer|year=2011|month=August|volume=40|issue=2|pages=33–38|url=http://www.theoryofastrology.com/carlson/carlson.htm}}</ref><ref name="ertel-c">{{cite journal|last=Ertel|first=Suitbert|title=Appraisal of Shawn Carlson's Renowned Astrology Tests|journal=Journal of Scientific Exploration|year=2009|volume=23|issue=2|pages=125–137|url=http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/full/jse_23_2_full.pdf#page=7}} "The design of Carlson’s study violated the demands of fairness and its mode of analysis ignored common norms
- of statistics".</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Vidmar|first=Joseph|title=A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments|journal=Correlation|year=2008|volume=26|issue=1|url=http://www.astronlp.com/Carlson%20Astrology%20Experiments.html}}</ref> When the stated measurement criterion was applied, and the published data was evaluated according to the normal conventions of the ], the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provided ] (astrologers' ranking test: ] = .054 with ] = .15, and astrologers' rating test: p = .037 with ES = .10), despite the unfair design, of their ability to successfully match CPIs to natal charts.<ref name="ertel-c" /> Observers have called for more detailed and stringent double-blind experiments.<ref name="mcritchie" />

{{Reflist}}</blockquote>

Such a significant edit calls for discussion and evaluation. The only explanation you gave was in your edit summary, which read: "using fringe publications to criticize mainstream research violates WP:UNDUE."
I would question your characterisation of "mainstream research"? The review of the experiment, which found it to be flawed and biased, was made by an independent, respected authority, ], who has an excellent reputation as seen by his long history of publications in well known science journals. He therefore represents 'the mainstream', because his review called for a more stringent application of the standards science expects. Additionally, be careful about what you assume to be 'fringe journals'. The reference to'' Correlation'', for example, goes to what is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit accords with the standard academic requirements that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics. The NPOV policy reads: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That is the case here, so it is not adhering to policy, but breaking it, to remove reliably substantiated material that is directly relevant to the content of this page. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
:Eysenck isn't a terrible source, what I object to is the perceived tearing apart of a legitimate study using biased marginal sourcing. I don't know about "Correlation" and I can't find anything about it aside from astrologers praising it. I'll bring it up at the reliable source noticeboard. The ] is definitely a fringe source as is ISAR International Astrologer. --] 20:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:: I'm curious why you defend the flawed study as 'legitimate', given the well-established criticisms raised against it. And why are you suggesting "biased marginal sourcing" in the reporting of these criticisms? When you say "The ] is definitely a fringe source" you need to appreciate that the definition only applies because it gives coverage to subjects that are classed as 'fringe subjects' - in other words, it explores topics such as astrology. In a discussion of a hard science, such a journal might be deemed in appropriate; here it is not. The WP page on the journal states:

::<blockquote>Bernard Haisch and Martha Sims, respectively past editor-in-chief and past executive director, describe the Journal of Scientific Exploration as a "peer-reviewed journal following the customs and standards of academic journals but designed specifically for the scholarly study of anomalies". If an article or essay paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published "subject to the Editor-in-Chief's judgment as to length, wording, and the like". The policy of the journal is to maintain a critical view by presenting both sides of an argument so as not to advocate for or against any of the published topics.</blockquote>

::So it is an appropriate journal to refer to for papers published on this subject. The policy on Fringe states:

::<blockquote>One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.</blockquote>

::Again, those policies have been adhered to here. Not every reference has to be to a peer-reviewed journal, of course, where there is a collection of reaffirming references published across a range of sources with reliable reputations, it is important to represent the collection of testimonies, to demonstrate that the information is widely reported. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::: I've added my 2c on the noticeboard. Disagree with Daniel J. Leivick to drastically edit the article unilaterally and without discussion. ] (]) 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
::::See ]. --] 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::::: ] is a suggestion for a problem where "too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made". Not the situation here. WP recommends that referenced material is never removed without appropriate talk-page discussion with the involved editors. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Then try ]. The idea that I should have to clear edits on the talk page is the anathema of what Misplaced Pages is. --] 23:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Not when it involves substantiated content. And please take the trouble to read the notice in the box above, which all editors here have laboured under: "Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). It is also important to '''discuss substantial changes here before making them''', supplying full citations when adding information."
::::::::None of the material is substantiated. All of the sources cited are totally unacceptable according to ]. Consensus cannot trump core policy. ] (]) 01:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed that none of those references are reliable, and the section needs to be removed. ] (]) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Most of the sources in the section "Gauquelin's research" appear to be similarly unreliable. Sigh. ] (]) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Indeed. I've deleted that section, too. ] (]) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I find all this utterly odd. Suitbert Ertel was a professor of psychology at Göttingen until his retirement and studied so-called paranormal things critically; Hans Eysenck was arguably the world's leading expert on psychological tests. As for Gauquelin, his massive research on claimed planetary effects, whatever one thinks of them, constitute the weightiest body of work on the cubject and deserves more than cursory attention.Axel 02:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::::All material added must comply with ], ], ] and ]. If you find this "utterly odd", I suggest you read these policies. ] (]) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
All of the editors that have invested their time into this article are aware of the applicable policies and how they apply. The act of dropping a few policy codes does not give you or anyone the authority to break or twist those WP policies to serve an agenda. There has also been a great deal of collaboration, consideration, and adherence to the policy that is clearly marked at the top of this talk page - that substantial changes are fully discussed before they are applied.

The notice marks this page as a controversial subject which is in need of cautious and sensible editing. A lot of work has gone into resolving problems and avoiding heated disputes, so that points of criticism can be raised and addressed calmly and appropriately. The greater part of the ruthless edits that have occured tonight, based on knee-jerk reactions, are non-constructive edits that have removed highly significant material, substantiated by numerous reliable sources. These have clearly broken WP policy. The only sensible course of action is to restore the previous consensus-driven content, with the reminder that editors working on this subject are obliged to engage in the process of objective discussion and thoughtful evaluation that the policy of this page requires. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 04:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

:Cautious and sensible editing means not adding material that is not backed up with reliable sources, as determined by WP policy. The rest of your arguments are nonsensical and specious. Your interpretation of WP sourcing policies is grossly deficient. Please read the policies again and conform to them. ] (]) 04:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

::What I don't see here is a discussion attempting to establish the credibility ot otherwise of a source. Who has determined, e.g., that Shaun Carlson is more credible than Professor Suitbert Ertel? A proper discussion would go into things like numbers of papers published, where published, how often cited, if one is tenured faculty, &c. None of which I see here. As for the criticism of my action yesterday - since all I did was restore text that was there previously, then that text must have been based on consesnus, no? For the reasons I have just mentioned, the comments I see above about the alleged unreliability of references does not seem based on any thorough discussion. And a final technical glitch: the robot said my comment was unsigned, but I did sign it with four tildes, after which my name (Axel) appeared followed by a time stamp. I never get a blue link when I sign. How does one arrange that? Axel 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Request for comment on sourcing ==

This request is closed. Please see new RfC section below.

Concerns have been raised about whether the content of this article conforms to WP policies concerning pseudoscientific/fringe subjects, most especially whether the sources used conform to ], and whether they are used properly. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ] (]) 06:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''No''' <small>Is this a trick question?</small> ] (]) 06:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*This is too vague a question. Which sources? All of them? ] (]) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*Exactly, for the input to be useful and serve any purpose at all, editors with concerns should identify which, if any sources, cause concerns, and propose suggestions that would make the article of more value to its readers. Be aware that the policy on Due and Undue Weight weight requires that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Also, that in an article specifically about a fringe subject "such views may receive more attention and space". I'm surprised that the request for comment has been made here, since there is an ongoing discussion about this issue, less than 1 day old, on the . -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 07:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*'''Wrong premise!''' DV, your request would have some validity if it had simply stated ''""Concerns have been raised about whether the content of this article conforms to WP policies"''. No need for the "concerning pseudoscientific/fringe subjects" bit. If it doesn't conform to WP policies, it doesn't conform period. ] (]) 07:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*Are you able to provide examples of peer-reviewed journals that would be both amenable to publishing articles on astrology and acceptable to you? The publication in Nature of Carlson in 1985 was an exception as the Carlson experiment was sponsored by CSICOP and the editor, John Maddox was a fellow of CSICOP. Nature, in the 25 years since, has refused to publish papers on astrology including an attempt to replicate Carlson. Editors of psychology journals will refer studies connected with astrology to Correlation, the premier peer-reviewed journal in the field, or ISAR, unless the paper primarily involves psychology. Correlation publishes papers that are both critical of astrology by well-known sceptics and tests that support astrology. I don't know enough about ISAR to comment. However, it is a circular argument to claim that astrology lacks evidence, but to suppress any journal that investigates and publishes astrological tests that are conducted under scientific conditions and peer-reviewed. ] ] 09:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


and are two sources which I just removed. I don't have time to look any closer right now, but I hope someone does have time. ] (]) 07:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

* '''Procedural comment''': I'm uninvolved in this topic, got a notification ] about this RfC. The RfC is not specific enough to actually enable uninvolved editors to meaningfully participate. Could the initiatior or any other involved editor ''actually explain'' what the concerns are over the reliability of the sources? Which sources in particular? Given the points made by Zachariel about the existence of a thread on ], I think the best thing would be for an uninvolved admin to close this RfC and then open an RfC that ''actually specifies what the damn point of contention is''. —] (]) 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

:: The point of contention began last night when a new editor removed a relevant passage from the article without discussion. I restored the content, which held 5 references, on the basis that “such a significant edit calls for discussion and evaluation”. You can see what he removed and my response in the section directly above, subheaded: ''''''

:: The editor then raised a discussion on the , on whether the peer-reviewed journal ''Correlation'' constitutes a reliable source. He proposed that this article uses “fringe sources to debunk mainstream research”. If you read the discussion you will see why I consider the suggestion unreasonable and unnecessarily provocative.

:: Within a few hours a number of new editors (including Dominus Vobisdu who opened this request for comment) made blanket removals of passages of the article with little or no explanation/discussion on the talk page. This took about 1000 words out of the article, and removed 30 references. I have argued that all of those indiscriminate cuts were non-constructive edits which failed to apply to the policy ruling made on this ‘controversial subject’ (to discuss substantial changes here before making them on the main page). On that basis, the original content has been restored with the request that any perceived problems be raised for discussion and proper evaluation. That was when Dominus Vobisdu, who seems to be very sparing in his/her own comments, made the request for others to comment.

:: Hope that helps. The objective attention of uninvolved is editors is very valuable. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 10:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*The point is the vast majority of the sources used in the "Research" section is sourced to pro-astrology "journals" and literature; these are not mainstream sources, and the intended effect of this is to create a significant ] problem by using this large number of pro-astrology sources. How on earth is it possible that the "Research" section is nearly 3 times larger than the "Scientific criticism" section, and no one finds anything wrong with this? ] (]) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

== Original Research ==

The following text, "Astrologers may also find it difficult to publish their research in mainstream scientific journals for several reasons, and a case has been made to underline this difficulty from a much wider perspective." was sourced to , which does not mention Astrology ''at all.'' This is clear OR/synth, and should not be added back. ] (]) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

== More specific RfC on sourcing in research section. ==

{{rfc|sci|reli|rfcid=241E2C1}}
{{Not a ballot}}
The main questions deal with the sourcing used in the research section, in particular, the following subsections:

1) Methods ]: The section is written from the POV that astrology is based on scientific principles, and that astrologers carry out "research", with "experiments" yielding "empirical" data. The language of the section is studded with scientific terms and goes far beyond reporting just what astrologers claim; their claims are presented in the voice of WP. The sources used are almost entirely primary sources published in non-peer reviewd "journals" and monographs. The notability of the sources given cannot be determined. The section is apologetic in nature, and gives only the fringe point of view. Particularly troubling are the last few sentences, which grossly violate ] and imply that the "controversy" surrounding studies on astrology extends into the scientific community, and generally violate ] and ].

2) Gauquelin's research ]: The section pertains to a pseudoscientific self-published study of unknown notability that is placed on equal footing with a scientific study published in Nature (see next section). Again, all of the sources provided are either self-published or published in non-peer review journals. The whole section is purely apologetic in tone, and the mainstream scientific position is essentially waved aside.

3) Carlson's experiment ]: The first paragraph is fine, and describes a scientific study published in nature. The second paragraph, though, is a "rebuttal" that consists basically of kvetching culled entirely from non-peer-reviewed sources. The claims are extraoordinary and fringe, yet are presented in the voice of WP. This paragraph grosly violates ], ] and ].

4) Obstacles to research ]: Non-encyclopedic special pleading about why astrologers can't conduct or publish their "research" in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Again, sourced with unreliable sources. Although slightly better attributed, the section is purely apologetic in nature. As such, it is little more than an off-topic rant.

5) Mechanisms ]. The first paragraph and quote are fine. After that, however, follows yet another apologetic paragraph with an appeal to authority to Carl Sagan. The next paragraph is also purely apologetic. These two paragraphs are also sourced primarily with fringe non-peer-reviewed sources, except for the Sagan sources, which are given undue weight.

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ] (]) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

: Was it necessary to close the original RFC and create a new one which masks the earlier responses?

::Yes, it was. ] (]) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I see no problem with starting a new RfC. Amending the prior RfC would have caused great confusion, since there were several replies already under the RfC, and they would have been made to look like non sequiturs. This is a brand new RfC and a "re do" is okay ... if it were a week old, a restart would probably be inappropriate. --] (]) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
'''NOTICE''': An earlier RfC was made but was closed because many respondents complained that it was not specific enough. All respondents have ben notified of this new RfC on their talk pages and invited to comment further. The responses to the earlier RfC can be see here: ]. Thank you. ] (]) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - There is ], which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely ]. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in ''articles about the fringe topics themselves'' the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above ''can'' be included in this article, because the article is ''about'' the fringe theory. The best remedy is to rely on the fact that counter-balancing criticism of astrology can and should be included in this article, and that the sourcing requirements for such criticism is relaxed for this article. In general, the guideline includes lots of guidance that is designed to ensure that material in pseudoscience articles is not presented as scientific fact. --] (]) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Mechanisms section''' - For example, the "mechanisms" section is a bit misleading because it implies there are mechanisms, and that Sagan supports that concept. The WP Policies ] and ] make it clear that no section in this article can place more than about half the weight endorsing the suggestion that astrology is valid. The remedy is to add more explicit balancing material that says'' "No, there is no mechanism"'' and name 3 or 4 prominent scientists that hold that view. The Mechanism section should be about half "maybe there is a mechanism" and about half "scientists say there definitely not". Ditto for all other sections in the article. Even in the lead: the "Mainstream considers astrology to be a pseudoscience" should be in the first paragraph, not at the tail end. --] (]) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks for your comments Noleander. I don't see the concern with the mechanisms section myself. Far from suggesting that there are approved mechanisms, the passage is clear "'''Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people'''". The references to Sagan are relevant because his refusal to sign the 'manifesto' is a significant point in modern astrological history, and continues to be referred to frequently. The text clarifies that he refused to sign on a matter of principle, and not because he thought that astrology was valid. The passage offers an overview of various influential views on the matter, demonstrating the diversity of opinion. I would say the last sentence regarding Percy Seymour is questionable. I placed a clarification needed tag on that some months ago. Since the clarification hasn't been forthcoming, that could be removed. That would help to balance the passage I believe, since it seems to imply that a mechanism exists which could explain astrology, which conflicts with earlier assertions that astrology is not based on a recognised mechanism, and is not causal in its basis (it is not a case of given that view an equal share of support, but clarifying that it's a red herring in terms of what the subject is about, whilst succintly covering the arguments that have been raised around that point).

:: The lede should not be tinkered without good reason. There were months of discussion involving editors with sceptical views, which established that, for now, the lede is appropriate and should be left as it is until the article is complete. This article is undergoing development - the history section is incomplete and will include a section on modern history, popularisation, commercialisation, etc, and this will also include its own criticisms section. In a topic with the historical and cultural influence that this subject has, it is inappropriate to place the main emphasis of its definition on what it is not. Astrology is not a science, and the lede is perfectly clear in stating this, and in choosing to specify - from all the points of notability that the subject has, that it has been defined as a pseudoscience. To go beyond that in the lede is to introduce undue weight. The page has a duty to present a comprehensive overview of the full story of astrology. Giving proportionate coverage to ''all'' its points of notability and significance.

:: Intelligent consideration and calm objectivity is required to get the balance of this controversial subject right. If the passage on mechanisms is considered to leave the view that any approved mechanism has been recognised, then how do we adjust this, to cover the relevant arguments and discussions, whilst emphasising that the principles of astrology are supported by philosophical theories, not scientific ones? Perhaps it is the use of the word 'mechanisms; in the title of this subsection that leads towards the wrong emphasis? If so, we need discussion on that point. (Most of the contributors who developed this content are not currently here. One stated a trip to India and I am not sure if he has returned yet). -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Response to the RfC.''' The Research section is highly problematic for the reasons outlined. It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research. A section "Scientific standing" would be appropriate and could reflect the range of scientific views of astrology, a range that in the real world is overwhelmingly weighted towards outright rejection. ] (]) 16:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree with Itsmejudith. The solutions to Dominus Vobisdu's inquiry is not ''"delete it because the sources are flaky"'' but rather'' "WP permits so-so souces for fringe topics, so instead balance it with counter-balancing material and neutral phrasing." '' The suggestion of Itsmejudith is a great example of re-working the material to be more objective and to ensure that WP does not present astrology as a legitimate science to unsuspecting readers. --] (]) 16:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

::::: Re the comment: "''It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research''" - are you suggesting that astrologers, even if suitably qualified to do so, should not be allowed to carry out scientific research? Or that the astrological community should not be allowed to invest its interests in scientific research? Or that if they do, the article should not be allowed to report it? Most of the research discussed here was not carried out by astrologers. Are you saying that the article is not allowed to report on the notable studies with discussion of the issues they raise and the relevant findings and criticisms applied to them, even when based on informative, reliable and verifiable sources? I also support the idea of neutral reporting, but what I want to establish is - ''are both sides of the argument allowed to be told''? If so, we are in catch 22; if not, we are in a worse place than that. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I mean, "research", as it is commonly understood in scholarly communities, is not part of the activity called "astrology". Notable studies can of course be mentioned, in fact all notable studies ought to be mentioned. As a way of moving forward, it would help if some people would list what they think are the best sources describing astrology. ] (]) 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Dominus Vobisdu, you have raised this RFC. From the wording of your points, it would appear to me that you are not familiar with current astrological work, thinking and trends. I'm not even sure whether you could define what astrology is. If true, that would not only give a strong POV bias to your efforts but also question your overall involvement. This issue has plagued the astrology article for some time: it is 'laypeople' vs. astrologers, with the former getting their uninformed views through by weight of opinion (i.e. sheer numbers) and procedural politics (i.e. being well versed in WP editorship but knowing nothing about the subject matter). For example, accepting the original Carlson article written by a student, which is an incredibly poor piece, just because it was published in ''Nature'' while rejecting scholarly articles written and peer-reviewed by subject matter experts, that raise relevant issues and put the original article in proper light, just because it was not published in a mainstream scientific journal is poor editorial judgment in my view. Similarly for not recognizing Gauquelin's significance etc, etc. Poor show overall for bringing up these straw-man arguments and red herrings, but this is not limited to your good self, unfortunately. Nothing personal, of course, just the subjective view of an editor. ] (]) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Remove all attempts based on non-RS to portray subject as connected with science''' While RfCs are necessary, it is obvious that there are two sides with irreconcilable differences and this discussion will go nowhere—only a major intervention from ANI or Arbcom will resolve the situation. The text at ] is designed to suggest that scientific research supports aspects of astrology, with blue-link laden text to impress the reader (example: "The investigation of astrology has used the ] methods of both ] and ]"). The sources are junk which fail ] for any comment regarding a connection between arbitrary astrological events and life on Earth. Yes, the sources can (in a ] manner) outline what astrologers think, but the current article uses language tricks to mix beliefs and scientific-sounding language with the result that a reader would be misled about what reliable sources say regarding the connection between heavenly objects and everyday life. ] (]) 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Follow ArbCom ruling''' Astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience and should be discussed from that perspective. We can certainly mention various studios like those conducted by Gauquelin, but they must be discussed from the perspective that they never received much traction in actual scientific communities. The same goes for marginally sourced criticisms of studies published in major publications like Carlson's research. Overall this article has far too much fringe apologetics for astrology and far to little discussion of the actual history and forms of the various existing types of astrology. --] 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Every scientific claim sourced to a fringe source must be removed.''' This includes '''any''' astrology journal, book, or website, the ], and others. None of these journals are indexed in ], none are widely cited, and none show signs of being part of ]. The "Research" section - indeed, most of the article - is unambiguously in violation of ]. ] (]) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'll add more to this later. If you have an acknowledged scientist, that is a scientist with a good scientific reputation, published in a fringy journal, do you automatically ignore what they say because of the journal? Are we saying that legit scientists publish in fringe journals only when they want to break with science or have something unscientific to say? I understand about peer review, but I also do not understand complete dismissal. '''B<sup>e</sup>'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;">—'''C<sub>ritical</sub>'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 03:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
::Generally, if a legitimate scientist has something scientific to say, they are going to try their darndest to get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal of considerable prestige and relevance. The motivation for doing so is incredibly high. If a legitimate scientist self-publishes or publishes his work in a fringe journal, it is a good bet that either 1) the paper was rejected by mainstream journals, 2) it was not even submitted to a mainstream journal because the author thought it would be rejected, or 3) the paper is on a topic that is either non-scientific or outside the scientist's field of expertise to the point that the scientist lacks competence to contribute to the field. Legitimate scientists can and do publish non-scientific or popular scientific papers in non-peer reviewed journals, and there is usually nothing wrong with this. On the other hand, when a scientist publishes a paper that ostensibly appears to be a serious scientific study in a fringe journal, skepticism is justified, and the validity of the study is questionable. It will generally be ignored or dismissed by the mainstream scientific community without the benefit of being read, regardless of the scientist's credentials, because it did not pass though a process of rigorous peer review. Scientists do not have time to scour through obscure fringe journals and evaluating papers of dubious validity on the extremely remote chance that they will find anything of scientific value. After all, one of the main funtions of the peer-review process is to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Bottom line: sources that make scientific claims that do not appear in mainstream recognized peer-reviewed journals can safely be considered as unreliable sources of little, if any, utility for WP purposes. It's a case of "guilty until proven innocent". ] (]) 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Achieving Neutrality ==

Ensuring that Misplaced Pages policies are ''properly'' understood, and then consistently applied, is the only solution to meeting the controversies that a controversial topic like this attracts. The sensible way to move forward is to take the sections under consideration and subject each one of them systematically to critical approval and invitation for improvement. It is not possible to scatter the necessary attention that each passage requires across notice boards and various talk page sections – to get this content perfectly balanced it needs thoughtful review. If there is an inability to reach consensus about a particular source, then that source should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, so it can be considered specifically within the context that it is being used. All of the sections that have been subject to criticisms (fair or not) can be reviewed in detail and the content adjusted, ''if'' necessary, ''as'' necessary. This is a time-consuming process, but this is the norm of this page which is restrained by the policy - clearly notified at the top of the page - (and with good reason) that substantial changes should be discussed here before making them to the page. This is also in-line with the Misplaced Pages policy on , which states

{{quote box|fontsize = 100%|“As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.”}}

Since the passage on Mechanisms has already had some scrutiny, that seems as good as any to kick off the process. I’ll reproduce it below with a recap on some of the comments made earlier, in the hope of stimulating other constructive suggestions that help us find the ideal solution and improve the quality of the information given in this article.

-------------------
===Mechanisms===
In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, a widely publicized article, "Objections to Astrology," published in '']'' in the form of a ] signed by 186 scientists, sparked a scientific controversy. In particular, "Objections to Astrology" focused on the question of astrological ] with the following words:

{{quote|We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.

Astronomer ], host of the award-winning TV series ], said that he found himself unable sign the "Objections" statement, not because he thought that astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone ], and because objections on the grounds of an unavailable mechanism can be mistaken. "No mechanism was known," Sagan wrote, "for ] (now subsumed in ]) when it was proposed by ]... The notion was roundly dismissed by all the great geophysicists, who were certain that continents were fixed." Sagan stated that he would instead have been willing to sign a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief, which he believed would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.

Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people. Researchers have posited ], purely ]al, relationships between astrological observations and events. For example, the theory of ] proposed by ], which draws from the Hermetic principle ("as above, so below"), postulates meaningful significance in unrelated events that occur simultaneously. Some astrologers have posited a basis in divination. Others have argued that ] correlations stand on their own, and do not need the support of any ] or mechanism. A few researchers, such as astronomer ], have sought to describe a mechanism based on electro-magnetism within an intricate web of planetary fields and resonances in the solar system that could potentially explain astrology.

-------------------

====Comments, criticisms and suggestions:====
(First five below are extracted from comments made earlier)
* '''Criticism''': The first paragraph and quote are fine. After that, however, follows yet another apologetic paragraph with an appeal to authority to Carl Sagan. The next paragraph is also purely apologetic. These two paragraphs are also sourced primarily with fringe non-peer-reviewed sources, except for the Sagan sources, which are given undue weight. (Dominus Vobisdu)

* '''Criticism''': the "mechanisms" section is a bit misleading because it implies there are mechanisms, and that Sagan supports that concept. The WP Policies WP:Undue and WP:PARITY make it clear that no section in this article can place more than about half the weight endorsing the suggestion that astrology is valid. (Noleander)

* '''Suggestion''': The remedy is to add more explicit balancing material that says "No, there is no mechanism" and name 3 or 4 prominent scientists that hold that view. The Mechanism section should be about half "maybe there is a mechanism" and about half "scientists say there definitely not". (Noleander)

* '''Comment''': I don't see the concern with the mechanisms section myself. Far from suggesting that there are approved mechanisms, the passage is clear "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". The references to Sagan are relevant because his refusal to sign the 'manifesto' is a significant point in modern astrological history, and continues to be referred to frequently. The text clarifies that he refused to sign on a matter of principle, and not because he thought that astrology was valid. The passage offers an overview of various influential views on the matter, demonstrating the diversity of opinion. (Zac)

* '''Suggestion''': I would say the last sentence regarding Percy Seymour is questionable. I placed a clarification needed tag on that some months ago. Since the clarification hasn't been forthcoming, that could be removed. That would help to balance the passage I believe, since it seems to imply that a mechanism exists which could explain astrology, which conflicts with earlier assertions that astrology is not based on a recognised mechanism, and is not causal in its basis (it is not a case of giving that view an equal share of support, but clarifying that it's a red herring in terms of what the subject is about, whilst succintly covering the arguments that have been raised around that point).(Zac) -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

::I have clarified Dr Percy Seymour's theory. Also, I think the various possible mechanisms should be numbered. ] ] 23:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for this clarification on Seymour, something I've been meaning to do. Perhaps it is the word "manifesto" in the Mechanisms section that is giving a problem because it is too strong a word. The 186 scientists, 18 of whom were Nobel Prizewinners, were appealing to their own authority. They mention there is "strong evidence to the contrary" against astrology but they do not say what that evidence is. Instead, they state their belief that gravity is too weak to be a possible mechanism. They say nothing about statistical investigations of astrology, which do not need a mechanism. So this is what could be called a manifesto, an appeal to authority. This 186 scientist statement is balanced by the statement from Sagan, who unapologetically criticizes the "authoritarian tone" of the 186. He offers a different critical approach to astrology that would not depend on arguments of mechanism, which historically does not always stand up. Is "manifesto" too harsh and should it be removed? ] (]) 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::: I've updated the text to show last night's amendments. Since we are reviewing this passage critically right now, please don't make any more amendments to the main space text until we have ensured this passage is as robust and objective as it can be, and are satisfied that its focus is appropriate and relevant. Any more comments or suggestions on this as it stands. For the record, the 'unreliable source' tag was added by Skinwalker, with the edit-box comment: "yet another patently unreliable source for a scientific claim" -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 09:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': I agree that there should be no concern with the mechanism section with regards to Sagan. The statement that very few astrologers beleive or claim there is a mechanism highlights objectivity. The Sagan information gives details of historical debate and the references given are reliable and verifiable.] (]) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': Not a biggie, but I don't think the wiki-link to ''The Humanist'', should remain. It doesn't go to details of the magazine in question. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

* '''Suggestion''': I have been working on a draft for the mechanisms section in my ]. Comments are welcome. ] ] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:: Robert, I have been working on a rewrite of the section since yesterday, to amalgamate the suggestions and address the criticisms. I don't think it will be possible to use all your text. It is very good, but for the sake of balance it will be difficult to use such strong arguments. However, I will incorporate what I can and will post something shortly for review and comment. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 06:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Tags ==

I'm adding NPOV and reliable source tags to the article, for reasons that should be obvious by reading the above discussion and the thread at ]. This article is biased towards the pro-astrology point of view and uses patently unreliable sources to push this POV. ] (]) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
: Whilst totally rejecting your view, the tags are fair enough. We will go through each of the criticisms systematically and sensibly. At the end of the day blanket critisms are pretty pointless - each detail has to be looked at in context. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

== This article appears not to be about 'astrology' ==

Rather than being an article about 'astrology' as an encyclopaedic subject, the article instead seems to me to have become a battleground between the 'believers' and the 'sceptics' over whether it 'works'. This is bad enough in itself, but it has also ensured that a major part of the topic isn't actually discussed at all: the significance of mainstream mass-media 'star-sign' horoscopes within popular culture. As I recently wrote on ], this omission may be explained by both 'serious' astrologers' and 'sceptics' likewise seeing these as tosh, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is almost certainly how most people experience, and perceive, astrology. And it isn't just a matter of abstract 'culture' either: in the 1990s, the ''Daily Mail'' for instance was grossing around £1 million per year from phone lines plugged by its printed horoscopes. Any balanced article on the topic should be placing greater emphasis on mass-market astrology, and less on esoteric debates between practitioners of a minor branch, and 'sceptics'. The subject matter should be defined by the subject, not by the current battleground in an on-Misplaced Pages dispute.

It also appears to not be about 'astrology' as a subject for another reason entirely - it is confined almost exclusively to one particular 'western' form' of the practice, and relegates other traditions to the sidelines - totally unbalanced in a top-level article. If an article is to solely discuss the 'western' astrological tradition, it should be named accordingly, and any top-level article entitled 'astrology' needs to give a more balanced account of the different variations. ] (]) 01:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with both points, though I'm not volunteering to fix them. — ] (]) 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

::That Misplaced Pages references the debates over astrology does not make Misplaced Pages the battleground. The question here is whether the facts and circumstances regarding the debates will or will not be recorded. The history and debates over astrology are of far more scholarly interest than popular horoscope columns. Let's keep things in perspective. ] (]) 02:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Encyclopedias do not confine the scope of their topics to the debates of a small minority of 'scholars' who are actually interested in esoteric debates over the topic. Astrology is a part of mainstream culture, and the fact that this aspect of astrology is disregarded in the debate between the 'pro' and 'anti' factions doesn't make it less significant. 'Perspective' can only be based on reality (or at least on our perceptions of it), and for every participant in the scholarly debates, there must be a thousand people reading 'their stars'. If scholars are ignoring popular culture, then it says little for their scholarship... ] (]) 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Agreed. It's astonishing that the article makes no mention at all of that woman (forgot her name) who supposedly predicted JFK's assassination and who had an influence on the Nixon administration. ] (]) 03:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::The woman who made a prediction in 1956 that a democrat elected to the presidency in 1960 would die in office was ]. She also predicted that Kennedy would would lose the election in 1960. This selective remembering of correct, though imprecise, predictions and forgetting of incorrect predictions (the ''Jeane Dixon effect'') may well have a place in an article on astrology. As pointed out below, the astrologer who played a role in the Reagan administration was ]; I'm not aware of an astrologer having any influence on the Nixon White House.- <span style="font-family: cursive">]</span> 22:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: I agree too, but Andy I am surprised that you don't realise that there is every intention to do this. It was previously discussed as part of the rearrangement of the content and plan for development and I thought you were involved at that time. (I will try to look through the archives and find that, but will give up if it takes more than 2 mins and will recap from what I recall). -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 08:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Nah, gave it two minutes, but too much to crawl through. You can see the theme in my post of 18 July began "It is undeniably innapropriate the way that the 'Astrology and science' section has been allowed to dominate this article on an age-old subject which has a vast cultural legacy and philosophical relevancy. We need to rethink the content from a fresh perspective which allows the reader to understand the subject - as well as the reasons why it has been hugely popular but never free from criticms and controversy. I am not suggesting this is done overnight". The way I remember is that the history section - which still needs a lot of development, will conclude with a section on modern history, which will detail the introduction of newspaper columns and how this has popularised the subject, I've stated in posts recently that the development of modern history will include its own criticisms, concerning probems with mass-marketing, commercialisation and over-simplification, etc.

:::::: I don't agree that this page has misplaced its focus by mainly dealing with the history and development of the Western tradition, whilst explaing that this developed in the east, and including brief refrence to other traditions and links for further info. In the English language editions of WP, we should focus on the system that has predominated in world culture as we understand it. The subject is comprehensive enough without trying to cover something like Chinese astrology, which has a very important story of its own, but falls outside the remit of what we can practially cover on this page. Likewise, other cultural versions of WP focus on the system that predominates in their regions.

:::::: Whilst it's good to get suggestions like this, the problem we face is a lot of work to be done. Anything realting to the overview of the subject's history and effect on culture is not ready to be critically assessed yet. A recent attempt to delete a collection of pages on the history of astrology has created the need to get those pages in good order first, so that the content can be summarised as part of the overview of trhe story of the astrology here. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that there should be some reference to Sun Sign astrology. The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together. However, it should be put into the context that it is a recent phenomenon - a youthful 81 year old :) compared to four thousand plus years, that it is practiced by a minority of professional astrologers and some astrologers do not consider it ‘real astrology’. There is of course a WP article on ]. As I see it, pop astrology is like Star Trek which is based on speculative ideas about science of the future but it’s science fiction rather than science. It doesn’t matter how popular it is or whether some people mistakenly consider it science, it is tangential to the page, but it should be mentioned.

:::::::Chinese Astrology, in the form of the circle of 12 animals, is a misnomer. It is not IMO astrology since it doesn't involve the positions or cycles of celestial bodies other than the New Moon to determine the start of the year rather like Easter or Ramadan is determined by a specific lunation.

:::::::Reagan's astrologer, Joan Quigley should, of course, also be included - perhaps in the Modern Era - history section? ] ] 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Robert Currey, that is nonsense of the highest order - you state that "The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together", and then argue that because it is "pop astrology" and because "some astrologers do not consider it ‘real astrology’" it is somehow tangential to the main page of our astrology coverage. As for your comments about it being mistaken by some for science, I think the response to that is too obvious to be worth bothering with. No we don't need to insert a paragraph or two on popular sun sign astrology into the article - we need to start again from scratch, dealing with as as a diverse phenomenon, with different traditions within different cultures, none of which has any more claim to being 'real' (still less 'science') than any other - if we are going to have an article on the belief systems and practices of some professional western astrologers, it belongs, as a minority system, in a subarticle. And no, you cannot simply dismiss the media horoscopes etc there either - they are part of the same cultural continuum that generates the funding for the 'professionals'. This article (like any on Misplaced Pages) isn't owned by a particular faction from within the subject matter. You don't get to define what 'astrology' is - the phenomenon itself does.

::::::::@Zac: I am aware that there have been discussions in the past regarding attempts to broaden the article at some point, but they are likely to remain just that - discussions about future intent that never actually get anywhere because the article is stuck in a deadlock due to its overemphasis on specific topics. Furthermore, your suggestion that our coverage of the modern history of astrology should "include its own criticisms, concerning with mass-marketing, commercialisation and over-simplification, etc" is inherently POV - you are asserting that it is somehow less 'genuine' than the older traditions, with no real justification. Misplaced Pages cannot make value-judgements on the relative merits of different belief systems, even if one seems on the surface to be driven by commercial considerations - that isn't our job. ] (]) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::: Andy, take heart and show some good faith. We will report what the sources say. It is quite obvious though, that this article is not stuck on over-emphasis of specific topics. Take a look at the content of 'Etymology and basic definitions'; 'Core Principles' and 'Cultural Influence' most of which has been recently developed from scratch, the rest of which has vastly improved the legacy of very poor quality content that existed before. Your points are taken though. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::Andy - I don't have the time to answer all your points now, but to clarify two points:
:::::::::::My analogy was with Star Trek and science. Just because ignorant people believe it is science and it attracts more interest than science, it doesn't mean we have to redefine science.
:::::::::::I don't believe sun sign astrology generates the funding for professional astrologers - either as a source of income or as a source of clients as in my experience, the emphasis on entertainment in sun sign columns tends to put people off getting into astrology. ] ] 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm not suggesting we redefine astrology. I'm suggesting that an article that purports to be on the subject should cover the entire subject, rather than a subset of it. ] (]) 15:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Andy, you've got it backwards. If you would understand correctly, Sun sign astrology (the Sun in signs only) is a minuscule sub-set of the entire subject of astrology and does not have an enduring literature. ] (]) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::As Robert Currey stated, "The income and audience of a small group of media sun sign astrologers is huge compared to all other astrologers put together". It may or may not have an 'enduring literature' but that doesn't make it less significant as a part of astrology as a whole - which is a sociocultural phenomenon extending far beyond the 'literature' of the serious astrologers. The limits to the topic of the article are the limits of the subject, not the limits of the 'literature' of a subset. If 100 people read 'their stars' in the daily papers for every person who consults a professional astrologer (a pure guess, of course), to place undue weight on the latter, while neglecting the former, is unencyclopaedic in an article which is supposed to be describing astrology as a whole. I've no objections to a properly-sourced and balanced sub-article dealing with the complexities of 'serious astrology', but it is inappropriate to treat this as the sole concern of the main article. ] (]) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Andy, You ask for sun sign astrology to be mentioned in your last paragraph due to the ‘income and audience being huge’. Your request is fair but it has been pointed out to you that sun sign astrology is not representative of astrology at all. It may well be a recent sociocultural phenomenon on the basis that it brings in money and has a huge audience but so does several YouTube hits which do not warrant inclusion on the WP music page. The Sociocultural phenomenon is about the growth in access and commercialisation and this argument has no place here. Maybe the way forward here is to include sun sign astrology as a recent sociocultural phenomenon and placed within the context of the history of astrology with a link to the sun sign astrology page ] (]) 01:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Nope. it is ''claimed'' that "sun sign astrology is not representative of astrology at all". If it isn't astrology, what is it? (BTW, welcome to Misplaced Pages - I see here that you state that you are "Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain". Can I ask that you read ]?). ] (]) 02:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== synchonicity ==

I removed the following from the lead:
:''Most astrologers contend there is no direct influence from the stars, only a ] correlation between the celestial and terrestrial.''
This was not sourced (the source that was used does not even mention synchronicity), and it does not reflect the text.

Oh, and of course it wouldn't be 'stars', but 'planets'. — ] (]) 02:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

::I have reverted your changes so we can discuss them first. This statement doesn't look right to me and I think it was already changed from something better earlier. I don't think "contend" and "only synchronistic correlation" accurately reflect the writings of authors engaged in the discussion. Synchronicity requires some explanation and it seems abrupt to inject it here in the lede. ] (]) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::It also seems dubious that "most" astrologers contend this. It's only mentioned in passing in the text, but this makes it seem central. — ] (]) 03:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:::: It is central. Synchronicity is the best way to express the core principle of the microcosmic/macrocsomiuc inter-relation in modern terms. That was the principle that inspired Jung and it is central in all auhoritative accounts, from Ptolemy onwards. There is no way to make this very deep philosophical point in the lede, but it is already adequately demonstrated in the core principles section.

:::: This is another point that needs development. Why Jung was so significant and has been so influential. Getting all these points clearly communicated in a very succint overview will be challenging though. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, was my edit. Skipping the previous point:
*"The 20th century brought renewed attention through re-kindled intellectual interest in statistically testing astrology's claims."
::Dubious, and AFICT unsupported.
::: It was badly phrased so it seems reasonable to take it out at this point. The lede will need later revision to capture the gist of that anyway, after further development of the content that explores how, why, and to what extent a re-kindling of popular interest occured.
::: By way of explamation, the point behind the comment was that the Gauquelin research brought a mass of new attention, which raised the profile of astrology and brought interest - and attacks - from academics. The 70s and 80s were filled with perceived potential for new scientific interest, based on the results of Gauquelin's statistical work. For now, that's best left aside until Gauquelin's influence has been established. At the moment, the article only details what his work looked into, not its resulting influence. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*"Astrology is considered a classic example of ],"
::This was in the lede after substantial discussion. IMO it's non-negotiable: per wiki policy we need to ''state'' that astrology is a pseudoscience, not just suggest that some people have that opinion.
*The reason for the above: that needs to be worked out. I was about to make an attempt when you reverted me. The ref that's already there covers the issue nicely. — ] (]) 03:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::Kwami, Good to know that you were planning to restore the ref after deleting it. How am I to know unless you discuss this? Now it has Asquith/Hacking in the same note as Thagard, and neither is a full reference. Thagard should have precedence as his is the current opinion on the problem of demarcation, all previous propositions having been shot down by more recent definitions. Asquith/Hacking is very stale and doesn't belong here, dating to 1978. ] (]) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I didn't remove any refs. Anyway, we don't need refs in the lead. The lead should summarize the body, and the body should be fully ref'd. — ] (]) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I'll go ahead and partly restore. Zac agrees w one point, there's no challenge on another, I've changed the "largely" you objected to, and am changing the last bit to fit better with Thagard. Please change the refs if you think they're not adequate, but basically they're only there to prevent POV battles. — ] (]) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, that's probably too much detail for why it's a pseudoscience for the lead. Someone can probably word it better. But as Thagard explained, the prior reasons we gave weren't adequate. — ] (]) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Some reversions and rewrites were necessary in the lede. The change in the lede second paragraph to "including" rendered the sentence ungramatical, so was changed back to "partly through". In the third paragraph, the changed attribution to Thagard introduced an error as not evaluating "other theories." The astrologers' belief that contrasts with the pseudoscience belief was cut and so was restored. The paragraph was carefully reworded to accurately reflect the 186, Thagard, and the supportive reasons for astrology as a pseudoscience. ] (]) 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::You changed ''"Some believe that celestial movements control fate...."'' to ''"Some have believed that celestial movements control fate...."''. Are you saying no astrologers believe that celestial movements control fate? ] (])
::::::No, but to keep it as "some believe" would give undue weight to that belief, and I believe it would be very hard to find an astrologer who claims it today because it hasn't been in the literature pretty much since medieval times. "Have believed" on the other hand does not rule out astrologers believing it up until the present time, if there are any. ] (]) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The archives demonstrate how much discussion and consensus-building has gone into the lede as it currently stands. So this shouldn't be tinkered about with now, but these points can all be given their due consideration. Kwami, I give you my word that I am not trying to ignore your concerns, but it is simply not practical to have too many thought-provoking issues up in the air at one time. We won't move forward and resolve multiple concerns unless we work through them together effectively. The RFC highlighted several passages that need consideration, and we can make this the next priority on the list. From what I remember the phrase "classic pseudoscience" was changed to "pseudoscience" to avoid a peacock tone, and because the references did not demonstrate that astrology is any more a pseudoscience than other subject which has been defined as such. Perhaps that something you want to explore? One of your edit summaries said "it is simply a pseudoscience" - unless there is a reliable source which defines it more colourfully than that, then it's not appropriate for us to do so. That's not to say that the whole point you are raising is not significant, I just want to give you the opportunity to check in preparation for when we can look at this collectively. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
{{od}} Go ahead and remove 'classic', then. That's fine. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could word it better than me, and as I said, that last line could certainly use some rewording. But we should state that it's pseudoscience: that has been gone over many many times. Also, the idea that "most" astrologers believe it's synchronistic is unsupported by the article. The lead should summarize the article, not make claims which are never developed or supported, and synchronicity is barely even mentioned. — ] (]) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Joan Quigley ==
An editor has recently suggested the inclusion of US President Reagan's astrologer, Joan Quigley. Here is a suggested minimal text - I am unsure if it should be included in the Modern Era (history) section or we rename the Culture Influence section or elsewhere. Any thoughts?

In 1981, after ] attempted assassination of ], first lady, ] commissioned astrologer, ] to act as the secret White House astrologer. However, Quigley's role ended in 1988 when it became public through the memoirs of former chief of staff, ].(refs given - now in article)

] ] 12:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is tricky because it belongs in the Modern Era history section, which needs development. One angle we could take there is to show how astrology got established as media entertainment, whilst bombing at the academic level - during the process of which practicing astrologers continued to practice as usual, and wield their own influence in ways such as this. But right now it doesn't fit well with the content in that section, so probably the best short-term fix is to put it in the Culture section - until we can move on from current concerns and develop the Modern Era text properly. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:Unless there are objections, I will add this to the Culture section pro tem. ] ] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::I have no objection, I think this is a good idea ] (]) 00:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Recent "Obstacles to research" and "Mechanisms" Edits ==

A new editor Be-Critical has cut major portions of these sections without prior discussion and consensus, claiming to be correcting "apologetics". These will need to be reverted and the reasons for them explained and discussed. ] (]) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:I'm sensing a rather strong aura of ] surrounding this article. ] (]) 03:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::I didn't edit the Obstacles to research section. However, it's obvious that were any field to show as few results for as grand claims as astrology, people might not want to fund it. I'm glad to discuss with you on the edits to the Mechanisms section. '''B<sup>e</sup>'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;">—'''C<sub>ritical</sub>'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 04:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::: ''Becritical'', please stop butchering the article. Your edits are not only destructive and show no respect for other editors but also against expected editorial behaviour. Given the controversial nature of this article, you first need to propose major changes, wait for consensus to develop and then (and only then) make the change. ] (]) 11:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what we should be working with, as it was before:
(text removed to avoid ref/conflict - it will be reinserted into article -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 11:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Please discuss your clarifications and suggestions on this page. ] (]) 04:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Reminder of policy ==

I am going to give a reminder of Noleander’s post of 27 September, because it covers points of direct significance to the matter of sources and deserves everyone's attention. This should put an end to the extreme position that is being taken by a few editors, that this article ''about astrology'', cannot refer to astrological sources.
{{quote box|There is ], which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely ]. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in ''articles about the fringe topics themselves'' the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above ''can'' be included in this article, because the article is ''about'' the fringe theory. The best remedy is to rely on the fact that counter-balancing criticism of astrology can and should be included in this article, and that the sourcing requirements for such criticism is relaxed for this article. In general, the guideline includes lots of guidance that is designed to ensure that material in pseudoscience articles is not presented as scientific fact. --] (]) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)}}

It also seems necessary (although it shouldn't) to give yet another reminder that significant changes to the main space article - especially where they affect previously agreed, referenced information - ''should not'' be made without prior evaluation and consensus agreement. Several significant changes have been made to the article in the last few hours, which ignore our need to work together, systematically, through the issues that are being raised, so that we can find objective solutions collectively.

Please take a responsible attitude and remember that this is a necessary requirement because this subject attracts strong views and conflicting opinions. (I am covering this briefly here because it has already been explained several times, and pointed out in more detail in the '' section above).

Each point of controversy must recieve the time and attention it deserves to get the content right. Currently we are looking at the 'Mechanisms' section, then we will progress through the other sections that have been highlighted with concerns in the recent RFC; and then we can re-evaluate the comments that have recently been edited in lede. Hopefully, that will allow us to clear up current concerns and move on to the development of the other areas where the astrology coverage needs development and expansion. Whilst this process is ongoing and passages are under critical review, I will return all previously agreed text to the article. This will ensure that we are not scattering discussions, or failing to give the due focus that these difficult and complex issues deserve.-- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 10:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:If you're concerned about scattering discussions, stop scattering them. This must be the fifth time this text has been posted to this page. ] (]) 11:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

::Guidelines are not policy, and they certainly don't override core policies, which clearly state that WP articles are to be based on reliable sources. This is particularly true of scientific claims. Remember that improperly sourced material can be deleted, and the burden is on YOU to provide reliable sources. WP does not exixt to give proponents of pseudoscience and fringe "theories" a platform to promote their views or gripes. ] (]) 11:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

== Mechanisms review – proposed amendment for 1st part on Humanist and Sagan references ==

{{quote|font=100%|To address the concerns given above in the ‘’ section relating to this passage, I propose that we demonstrate more clearly why the Humanist statement was authoritative and created a defining position on astrology in science, We also need to show more clearly why Sagan's stance has been so notable and significant. It is this first part that I am asking us to look at collectively as a first step in the process.

Once we gain consensus on this introductory part, we can consider what alternative – non-approved – theories have attracted attention as published ideas. Without giving credit to any idea, it is relevant to briefly outline what they are and who they are primarily associated with. We need to tread a fine line here so that we are not excluding relevant information, nor advocating support, just covering the relevant issues objectively.

This should extend beyond the matter of research to include notable philosophical and historical views too. Therefore I propose that we remove this section from the ‘Research’ section and give it its own section (between ‘Research’ and ‘Scientific Criticisms’ ?). Also, that we rename the section ‘Failure to demonstrate its mechanism’ to drive home the relevance of its theme and address the concerns some editors have, that by giving coverage to alternate ideas, it might be interpreted as offering support towards them. I hope this seems fair to everyone.


==Since When Has It Been Pseudoscience?==
This is the text I propose for the first part on the Humanist and Sagan controversy.}}
The question is 17th v 18th Century. The Society of Astrologers, (a page I'll be creating soon and would love some help with), was formed in the 17th century in contrast to the Royal Society. Their purpose was to restore Astrology's legitimacy. According to at least one historian they failed. Their focus and arguments were primarily religious, but the fact that the Royal Society continued on without them and the Society of Astrologers went defunct IMO demonstrates that already in the 17th century scientists were not taking it seriously. Yes, there was an RfC, but now we have new RS, and more to come -- Massimo Pigliucci an expert on pseudoscience, feels that the term "pseudoscience" makes sense even back when Cicero was criticizing Astrology.] (]) 15:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


:Here on page 220 apparently we get 1679 as the date of a "clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy" (quote from ], not the reference) {{cite book|editor-last=Hoskin|editor-first=Michael|title=The Cambridge concise history of astronomy|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521572910|edition=Printing 2003.}} I'm pretty sure 1679 is in the 17th century, no? ] (]) 04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
-----------------------
::The source only mentions a book dedicated to astronomy that eschews astrology. It is certainly not a "clear rejection" of astrology, at least as far as the source describes it. Even if it did reject astrology outright, that doesn't mean the academy at large rejected astrology.
::It took months of arguing to change the lead and its incredibly sneaky to wait until all that dies down for months to start editing it like no one would notice. ]<sub>(])</sub> 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, I want people to notice. I think we need to discuss this deeply held desire by some editors to, despite a high percentage of the RS that are currently in the article and more to come from me, promote a single POV from a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology. I actually think there is value to that position and that it belongs in the article, but it currently is overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. It gets a little complicated, however, whether or not we are talking about Western astrology. And the definition of pseudoscience is also tricky. And then there is the issue of distinguishing astronomy from astrology. But certainly as soon as you can say, "there was astrology and there was astronomy", you are firmly in the pseudoscientific zone. Saying this happened in the 17th century is quite modest, given that it actually happened as far back as the 1st Century when people like Cicero were plainly stating that astrology was in opposition to reason. Cicero wasn't saying "ignore the heavens" He was saying "astrology is bunk". And lastly, I haven't re-read the most recent RFC's, but I can tell you right now that they were not as broad as to say "is the lead perfect and should no changes be made to the body?" New RS requires a new discussion. So if that's what you consider "incredibly sneaky" lock me up. ] (]) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::It is completely ahistorical to claim that astrology has been opposed to natural philosophy for its entire existence. Even Thaggard ''et al'' admits this.
::::P.S. If you didn't know, Cicero was an ]. As with all schools of ancient skepticism, they denied knowledge was possible altogether. Cicero wasn't arguing for astronomy against astrology. He was opposed to the idea that natural sciences -- including astrology in the first-century -- could lead to knowledge at all. ]<sub>(])</sub> 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm now home and can make a more substantial response to this. You state that {{tq|a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology}} are {{tq|overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence.}} Firstly, there is no such group of historians who are {{tq|overwhelming the consensus}}, whatever that means. There is a single -- small -- section dedicated to contextualizing astrology within a broader view of the history of science. The ] subsection is preceded by three subsections (over 1,500 words) regarding the scientific validity of astrology as practiced today. The lede introduces pseudoscience in the tenth word. And even then, {{em|historians of science are experts}}. There is no {{tq|overwhelm the consensus}}. There is simply the consensus among historians of science that astrology, as practiced before the 18th century, was not pseudoscience, let alone {{tq|in opposition to Natural Philosophy}}. This view is even shared by Paul Thagard, who writes:
::::{{blockquote|In the time of Ptolemy or even Kepler, astrology had few alternatives in the explanation of human personality and behavior. Existing alternatives were scarcely more sophisticated or corroborated than astrology. Hence astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times, even though it is pseudoscientific today. Astrology was not simply a perverse sideline of Ptolemy and Kepler, but part of their scientific activity, even if a physicist involved with astrology today should be looked at askance. Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category. Rationality is not a property of ideas eternally: ideas, like actions, can be rational at time but irrational at others. Hence relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result.}}
::::You mention the {{tq|Society of Astrologers}}. You also seem to know that it was intended to defend astrology against {{em|religious}} criticism, not scientific criticism. The ] initially overlapped with the Society of Astrologers in a significant degree, so while the latter failed, the former wasn't {{tq|not taking seriously}}, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed {{tq|in contrast}} with the Royal Society. It is also doubtful you read the source you linked -- Pfeffer doesn't mention "pseudoscience" anywhere in her paper. In fact, the word pseudoscience was .
::::To concur with ], your edits are {{tq|ot an improvement}}.
::::Man, I love ] so much... ]<sub>(])</sub> 07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::You think there is a consensus amongst historians of science? Do you have sources for that? The two sources in the lead supporting the 18th century as the point of demarcation are not historians of science. One source is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and the other is a defense of "esotericism" by a "professor of the History of Hermetic Philosophy"!!!! Maybe you have better sources you could put in? Yes your Paul Thagard quotation is good, but he's obviously making a provocative polemic. And he doesn't support the 18th century. Thagard's position may be getting more of a foothold, but it's hardly a done deal. It's not a settled consensus, and so for us, as editors, decide Thagard's take in the correct one is not NPOV. We need to make it clear that throughout its history Astrology has had its critics. And as I've said giving the contextualizers a voice is also good. But right now the scale is tipped the wrong way. Per WP:FRINGE. ] (]) 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Here is ] who is as well if not better credentialed than Thagard, from his substack: "“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.” That is completely correct, and as we have seen it is a principle that goes back at least to Hume and Laplace, though Cicero argues in a similar way in De Divinatione, where he criticizes the Stoics for believing in '''the pseudoscience of divination''' (he didn’t use that term, but that’s clearly what he meant)." ] (]) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Pigliucci's self-published Substack blog where he puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Let's start with Thagard:
::::::* {{cite journal | last=Thagard | first=Paul R. | title=Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience | journal=PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association | publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) | volume=1978 | issue=1 | year=1978 | issn=0270-8647 | doi=10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639 | pages=223–234}}'
::::::* {{cite book | last=Barton | first=Tamsyn | title=Ancient Astrology | publisher=Psychology Press | date=1994 | isbn=978-0-415-11029-7}}
::::::* {{cite book | last=Beck | first=Roger | title=A brief history of ancient astrology | publisher=Blackwell Pub. | publication-place=Malden, MA | year=2007 | isbn=978-0-470-77377-2 | oclc=214281257}}
::::::* {{cite book | last=Hanegraaff | first=Wouter J. | title=Esotericism and the Academy | publisher=Cambridge University Press | date=2012-01-19 | isbn=978-0-521-19621-5}}
::::::* {{cite | last=Rochberg | first=Francesca | title=Astral Sciences of Ancient Mesopotamia | publisher=Oxford University Press | date=2018-07-10 | doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.62}}
::::::* {{cite journal | last=Taub | first=Liba | title=The Rehabilitation of Wretched Subjects | journal=Early Science and Medicine | publisher=Brill | volume=2 | issue=1 | year=1997 | issn=1383-7427 | doi=10.1163/157338297x00023 | pages=74–87}}
::::::* {{cite journal | last=Hankinson | first=R.J. | title=Stoicism, Science and Divination | journal=Apeiron | publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH | volume=21 | issue=2 | year=1988 | issn=2156-7093 | doi=10.1515/apeiron.1988.21.2.123}}
::::::There are others, but these are the main ones referenced in the page.
::::::Anyway, just because you put the ] in ]s doesn't mean it isn't a real field of study. Hanegraaff's book is published by ] and isn't a defense of esotericism at all. Plus, you seem to imply he's a quack of some sort, and not a professor at the ] specializing in the history of astrology and such...in other words, {{em|exactly}} the kind of expert one should reference -- if anyone knows the relationship between early modern science and astrology, it's Hanegraaff. Plus, the consensus among editors is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for many topics in religious studies.
::::::There is already discussion about ancient and pre-18th century criticism of astrology on the page. Not an improvement. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, so we have two questions on the table. 1) was Astrology a pseudoscience before the 18th century? 2) was astrology criticized throughout its history prior to that?
:::::::As I said, the sources listed in the lead do not seem to support the text written there (18th century). Can you find support from your better sources? You've provided a nice list, however...
:::::::Thagard, who is pushing the historical relativistic point the hardest is a philosopher, but I'll accept him as relevant, and place against him Pigliucci who disagrees with him.
:::::::We are not allowed to decide which of them is correct nor give undue balance to one of their opinions. Especially since Thagard seems to have a spicy new take on it. He might be right to scold the stuffy old historians and their presentism, however, we don't just jump on any bandwagon that rolls by. Right now the longest paragraph in the lead pushes Thagard's position.
:::::::Now looking at your other sources. Do you have the books on hand? Can you provide author bios?
:::::::Tamsyn Barton, I can find nothing about then. Do you know what their credentials are?
:::::::As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.
:::::::But the following look legit to me:
:::::::Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.
:::::::Liba Taub also looks legit to me.
:::::::Hankinson is good too.
:::::::As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:
:::::::{{quote|
:::::::"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 '''Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.'''17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization."}} ] (]) 14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::


::::::::I've already mentioned that Pigliucci's self-published blog (in which he places words in Cicero's mouth) is not an improvement or "on equal footing" with Thagard's paper, which is an academic publication. The former is only relevant for Pigliucci's own views. In any case, there are not {{tq|two questions on the table}}. There is only one question: do relevant, reliable sources support a 17th century date for the ascendance of astrology as a pseudoscience? The answer is a resounding "no."
::::::::Tamsyn Barton is an anthropologist specializing in the history of astrology, an alumnus of ] and ], with a PhD from ]. Hanegraaff specializes in the history of astrology and dismissing his research is inane.
::::::::Lastly the only thing that matters with the Pfeffer source is that isn't relevant, it doesn't mention pseudoscience at all.
::::::::Feel free to check the sources. But if you do not have any sources that explicitly support a date in the 17th century for the recognition of astrology as a pseudoscience (which is borderline impossible, since the word didn't even exist in the 17th century) then refrain from editing the page to suggest such. ]<sub>(])</sub> 01:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::As to Pigliucci's Notability you can't have a gripe, so under both ] and ], his "blog" is the professional opinion of a SECONDARY expert. And what he is saying there is completely in keeping with his published work and his relevant expertise. But don't worry, I have more sources coming. In the meantime...
:::::::::Here is a Misplaced Pages essay that you might find useful. You can find it here: ]. It's just an essay so doesn't carry the weight of Policy or Guideline, but still some food for thought, namely:
:::::::::"Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway.
:::::::::...
:::::::::'''Being from a "major" (says who?) publisher is not ''proof'' that a source is reliable'''; it's just an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books – because at least one professional editor acted as a filter, and because other reliable sources cite material from this publisher on a regular basis."
:::::::::Cheers ] (]) 23:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::As per ], {{tq|elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves}}. Thus, it would be an acceptable source for a statement like {{tq|Pigliucci has stated that he believes astrology was a pseudoscience in antiquity}} (or something, a single parenthetical is not really notable here.) It would {{em|not}} be a reliable source for actually stating that astrology actually was a pseudoscience in antiquity, especially when a better-quality source (Thagard) says the opposite. A self-published Substack blog (scare quotes notwithstanding) where Pigliucci puts words in Cicero's mouth is {{em|not an improvement on Thagard}} for the date in which astrology becomes a pseudoscience.
::::::::::] isn't really applicable, unless you're implying that ] is a fringe source (he isn't.) As per your own quotation, academic publication is {{tq|an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books}}. In this case, the academic sources given absolutely are more reliable than a single, off-hand parenthetical self-published by Pigliucci. ]<sub>(])</sub> 02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yay, we agree! We can indeed follow policy and say, per ABOUTSELF that Pigliucci an expert in pseudoscience, philosophy and science, a native speaker of Italian and a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers in particular, '''says''' that Cicero considered Astrology to be a pseudoscience. Would you like to put that in or should I? ] (]) 21:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::As I originally stated, {{tq|a single parenthetical is not really notable here}}. It should not imply that such a view is comparable to the scholarly consensus -- which is that astrology was only recognized as a pseudoscience in the 18th century -- which is clearly what you're trying to do. As far as I know, Pigliucci is only a {{tq|scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers}} insofar as he's associated with ], anyway. He's not really a notable source for elucidating what Cicero thought about astrology, especially apparent since he puts the word pseudoscience in his mouth despite the fact that such a concept would be completely foreign to a first-century BCE academic skeptic. ]<sub>(])</sub> 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Can you please provide a link to whichever of the many many non-indexed and often-paywalled posts in "Pigliucci's substack blog" that you all are referring to or quoting? I checked the history and no such thing has been posted; you both seem to know exactly what is being discussed, but there's no way anyone else can follow. ] (]) 23:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Mme Dolya is referencing this (which is not an improvement on Thagard.) ]<sub>(])</sub> 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The post is paywalled, but you say it's consistent with his published work. The topic in question seems to be Pigliucci talking about Cicero criticizing astrology. Any references to that, that normal people can access from say a university or public library? ] (]) 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I don't know nor particularly care if it's consistent with his published work. I don't think it's an appropriate source and even if he did say that Ciceroc had a conception of pseudoscience in antiquity, I wouldn't buy it. ]<sub>(])</sub> 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Here is Fernandez-Beanato making the case that Cicero is actually talking about pseudo science.
:::::::::::::::::Here is Pigliucci building on this. Sorry this is paywalled. Maybe I can get you a pdf if you are interested.
::::::::::::::::: ] (]) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with the arbcom decision that gives astrology as an example of pseudoscience, and wp's rules and guidelines that require us to clearly describe it as such early in the lead, without waffling or qualification.
:
:The long and frankly exhausting arguments by a couple of people who nominally declare enthusiasm on the question of "who decided this when?" are not convincing, and don't meet the bar to break this policy. It would make the article worse.
:To those who have been advocating for weakening the clear description as PS, maybe your thesis on "it wasn't PS until 18xx" can go briefly somewhere in the history section if you must, but keep it out of the lead. ] (]) 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::There are no rules or guidelines which {{em|require}} us to mark something without {{tq|qualification}} -- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology {{em|became}} a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an {{em|encyclopedic}} view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)
::Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.) ]] 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Its still wrong in my opinion because astrology never claimed to be a modern science nor do any other divinatory practices. ] (]) 13:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Your opinion is irrelevant. Only what is published in ] counts on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 07:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the necropost, Hob. ]] 08:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::::::::}}Did you know that ... {{tq|Cicero himself was an ], a member of the college of officials who oversaw augury}} ({{sfnlink|article=De Divinatione|nb=yes|Wynne|2019|p=183}})?{{pb}}It's a bit tricky to use someone like ], who is not an expert on Cicero and published this in a non-academic magazine like '']''. Damian Fernandez-Beanato is much better already, but still not by any means a specialist in Cicero, or even in ancient philosophy.{{pb}}It would be wise to compare Pigliucci's and Fernandez-Beanato's work with what some of the most respected ancient philosophy experts have written about this topic, such as ] and ] (see {{sfnlink|article=De Divinatione|nb=yes|Schofield|1986}} (access possible via ]) and {{sfnlink|article=astrology|nb=yes|Long|2005}} (already used in the article)). Another useful source may be {{sfnlink|article=De Divinatione|nb=yes|Wynne|2019}}, who is a Cicero expert but not a really well-established scholar as far as I know. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


:I'm late but here's my two cents: it's misleading to talk about "science" in the age of Cicero. While the ancients were doing what we'd call "proto-science", and while many Medieval thinkers were engaged in "natural philosophy" (what we call "science"), modern science as we understand it (a process involving empiricism, heavy reliance on mathematics, and results that can be tested and replicated) did not really emerge until the 16th Century at the earliest. So, the age of Galileo.
'''Failure to demonstrate its mechanism'''
:As to when astrology was widely recognized as "pseudoscience" -it's hard to tell. While Galileo was definitely doing empirical science (again, as we understand it), he was also involved in astrology. Even Newton was publishing on astrology in the 17th Century and it does not seem like this was anything unusual for a scientist of that age. I want to say the 18th Century was a turning point, and if that's what reliable sources say, it's probably accurate. The arguments about Cicero, while interesting, seem fringe. ] (]) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024 ==
In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, ''The Humanist'' magazine presented a clear and much publicized rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by ], Lawrence E. Jerome, and ].<ref name="Humanist">, volume 35, no.5 (September/October 1975); pp. 4-6. The statement is reproduced in 'The Strange Case of Astrology' by Paul Feyerabend, published in ] .</ref> This was authorized by the signatures of 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. Entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, the statement was designed to caution the public against the unquestioning acceptance of astrological advice. Its criticism focused on the question of astrological ] with the following words:
{{quote|We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.<ref name="Humanist" />}}
Astronomer ], host of the award-winning TV series ], attracted notoriety by declining to sign the ‘Objections’ statement. For this reason his words have been quoted by those who argue in favour of astrology retaining some sort of scientific interest.<ref name="Das">See for example ] Introduction, .</ref> However, Sagan’s stance was not taken because he thought astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone ], and because theoretical dismissals based mainly on the grounds of an unavailable mechanism can be mistaken. He was later to write of this:
{{Quote|The statement stressed that we can think of no mechanism by which astrology could work. This is certainly a relevant pointn but by itself it's unconvincing. No mechanism was known for continental drift (now subsumed in plate tectonics) when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.<ref name="Sagan">] p.302.</ref>}}
In a letter published in a follow-up edition of ''The Humanist'',<ref name="Humanist_letter">, volume 36, no.5 (1976).</ref> Sagan clarified his position, confirming that he would have been willing to sign such a statement had it described and refuted the principal tenets of astrological belief. This, he argued, would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy.


{{edit extended-protected|Astrology|answered=yes}}
In 2nd paragraph of Ancient World section, 7th line, please change "first dynasty of Mesopotamia" to "first dynasty of Babylon". (See pertinent Misplaced Pages chronology entries, e.g. in Chronology of the Ancient Near East.) ] (]) 16:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
: This edit was completed by another editor ] (]) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


== Extended ==
'''References'''
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}


aph of Ancient World section, 7th line, pleas ] (]) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Bibliography'''
:Aph? ] (]) 10:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
<div class="references-small">
*{{Wikicite | id = Das | reference= Das, Tapan, 2009. ''Why Astrology Is Science: Five Good Reasons''. iUniverse, 2009. ISBN 9781440133718.}}</div>
*{{Wikicite | id = Grim | reference= Grim, Patrick, 1990. ''Philosophy of science and the occult''. SUNY Press, 1990. ISBN 9780791402047.}}</div>
*{{Wikicite | id = Sagan | reference= Sagan, Carl, 1995. ''2. The Demon-haunted World: science as a candle in the dark''. Random House, 1995. ISBN 9780394535128.}}</div>


== 6 month before ==
-----------------------


Rohit ] (]) 05:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:What are you saying? ] (]) 09:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 ==
{{Quote| font=100%|If objections exist please outline them clearly and specifically, in a civil tone that does not generate assumptions of bad faith. Also be aware that consensus is achieved by avoiding extreme positions and seeking the objective and informative approach that is typical of a respectable encyclopaedic resource -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)}}


{{edit extended-protected|Astrology|answered=yes}}
::Just to provide some background here, the Objections article appeared when researchers, notably Michel Gauquelin, were publishing statistical results in astrology and generating great interest. By drawing attention away from this effort to the issue of mechanism, the objectionists were setting up the straw man argument that astrology should have a mechanism first before anything else, as was more typical of science before the 20th century. Since the early 20th century science has been led primarily by statistical inference first before theory or mechanism. This straw man argument is also reflected in the "problems" that Paul Thagard argues about in his definition of the demarcation problem (what demarcates science from pseudoscience), that astrology "hasn't solved." He is alluding to the lack of mechanism.
Hi, There is a permanent dead link in the article citation 110. I want to replace this link with a live link of an authentic article. Please allow me to edit the article citations by this link - https://www.astroculture.in/blog/discover-thechinese-zodiac/ ] (]) 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


: Hi {{ping|AstroCulture}}. I've updated the link. Unfortunately, the url that you have provided would not have worked. Blogs are generally not considered to be ]. --] (]) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::The Objectionists claimed there is evidence to the contrary on astrology but they did not provide any, but used the mechanism argument instead. Evidence is what resolves scientific issues. Carl Sagan was critical of the position taken in Objections, but even he did not suggest any evidence against astrology (the reason being that there is no reliable evidence against astrology), but suggested instead arguments based on scientific principles. Philosopher Paul Feyerabend in "The Strange Case of Astrology" also was critical of the Objections article, and drew a comparison to the Malleus Maleficarum, which launched the Inquisition, only claiming it to be even less objective. Science does not proceed by decree, as the 186 who signed the Objections article were attempting to do. The logical fallacy of the Objections statement also resonated with a groups of scientists and academics who objected to the Objections article with a counter article signed by 187! ] (]) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:14, 7 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astrology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articleAstrology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 2, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Mundane astrology was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Astrology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstrology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccult Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAstronomy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.


Since When Has It Been Pseudoscience?

The question is 17th v 18th Century. The Society of Astrologers, (a page I'll be creating soon and would love some help with), was formed in the 17th century in contrast to the Royal Society. Their purpose was to restore Astrology's legitimacy. According to at least one historian they failed. Their focus and arguments were primarily religious, but the fact that the Royal Society continued on without them and the Society of Astrologers went defunct IMO demonstrates that already in the 17th century scientists were not taking it seriously. Yes, there was an RfC, but now we have new RS, and more to come -- Massimo Pigliucci an expert on pseudoscience, feels that the term "pseudoscience" makes sense even back when Cicero was criticizing Astrology.DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Here on page 220 apparently we get 1679 as the date of a "clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy" (quote from Astrology and science, not the reference) Hoskin, Michael, ed. (2003). The Cambridge concise history of astronomy (Printing 2003. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521572910. I'm pretty sure 1679 is in the 17th century, no? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The source only mentions a book dedicated to astronomy that eschews astrology. It is certainly not a "clear rejection" of astrology, at least as far as the source describes it. Even if it did reject astrology outright, that doesn't mean the academy at large rejected astrology.
It took months of arguing to change the lead and its incredibly sneaky to wait until all that dies down for months to start editing it like no one would notice. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, I want people to notice. I think we need to discuss this deeply held desire by some editors to, despite a high percentage of the RS that are currently in the article and more to come from me, promote a single POV from a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology. I actually think there is value to that position and that it belongs in the article, but it currently is overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. It gets a little complicated, however, whether or not we are talking about Western astrology. And the definition of pseudoscience is also tricky. And then there is the issue of distinguishing astronomy from astrology. But certainly as soon as you can say, "there was astrology and there was astronomy", you are firmly in the pseudoscientific zone. Saying this happened in the 17th century is quite modest, given that it actually happened as far back as the 1st Century when people like Cicero were plainly stating that astrology was in opposition to reason. Cicero wasn't saying "ignore the heavens" He was saying "astrology is bunk". And lastly, I haven't re-read the most recent RFC's, but I can tell you right now that they were not as broad as to say "is the lead perfect and should no changes be made to the body?" New RS requires a new discussion. So if that's what you consider "incredibly sneaky" lock me up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is completely ahistorical to claim that astrology has been opposed to natural philosophy for its entire existence. Even Thaggard et al admits this.
P.S. If you didn't know, Cicero was an academic skeptic. As with all schools of ancient skepticism, they denied knowledge was possible altogether. Cicero wasn't arguing for astronomy against astrology. He was opposed to the idea that natural sciences -- including astrology in the first-century -- could lead to knowledge at all. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm now home and can make a more substantial response to this. You state that a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology are overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. Firstly, there is no such group of historians who are overwhelming the consensus, whatever that means. There is a single -- small -- section dedicated to contextualizing astrology within a broader view of the history of science. The Reception in the social sciences subsection is preceded by three subsections (over 1,500 words) regarding the scientific validity of astrology as practiced today. The lede introduces pseudoscience in the tenth word. And even then, historians of science are experts. There is no overwhelm the consensus. There is simply the consensus among historians of science that astrology, as practiced before the 18th century, was not pseudoscience, let alone in opposition to Natural Philosophy. This view is even shared by Paul Thagard, who writes:

In the time of Ptolemy or even Kepler, astrology had few alternatives in the explanation of human personality and behavior. Existing alternatives were scarcely more sophisticated or corroborated than astrology. Hence astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times, even though it is pseudoscientific today. Astrology was not simply a perverse sideline of Ptolemy and Kepler, but part of their scientific activity, even if a physicist involved with astrology today should be looked at askance. Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category. Rationality is not a property of ideas eternally: ideas, like actions, can be rational at time but irrational at others. Hence relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result.

You mention the Society of Astrologers. You also seem to know that it was intended to defend astrology against religious criticism, not scientific criticism. The Royal Society initially overlapped with the Society of Astrologers in a significant degree, so while the latter failed, the former wasn't not taking seriously, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed in contrast with the Royal Society. It is also doubtful you read the source you linked -- Pfeffer doesn't mention "pseudoscience" anywhere in her paper. In fact, the word pseudoscience was not coined until the late 18th century.
To concur with User:AndytheGrump, your edits are ot an improvement.
Man, I love Template:Talk quote inline so much... MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You think there is a consensus amongst historians of science? Do you have sources for that? The two sources in the lead supporting the 18th century as the point of demarcation are not historians of science. One source is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and the other is a defense of "esotericism" by a "professor of the History of Hermetic Philosophy"!!!! Maybe you have better sources you could put in? Yes your Paul Thagard quotation is good, but he's obviously making a provocative polemic. And he doesn't support the 18th century. Thagard's position may be getting more of a foothold, but it's hardly a done deal. It's not a settled consensus, and so for us, as editors, decide Thagard's take in the correct one is not NPOV. We need to make it clear that throughout its history Astrology has had its critics. And as I've said giving the contextualizers a voice is also good. But right now the scale is tipped the wrong way. Per WP:FRINGE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is Massimo Pigliucci who is as well if not better credentialed than Thagard, from his substack: "“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.” That is completely correct, and as we have seen it is a principle that goes back at least to Hume and Laplace, though Cicero argues in a similar way in De Divinatione, where he criticizes the Stoics for believing in the pseudoscience of divination (he didn’t use that term, but that’s clearly what he meant)." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Pigliucci's self-published Substack blog where he puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Let's start with Thagard:
There are others, but these are the main ones referenced in the page.
Anyway, just because you put the esotericism in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a real field of study. Hanegraaff's book is published by Cambridge University Press and isn't a defense of esotericism at all. Plus, you seem to imply he's a quack of some sort, and not a professor at the University of Amsterdam specializing in the history of astrology and such...in other words, exactly the kind of expert one should reference -- if anyone knows the relationship between early modern science and astrology, it's Hanegraaff. Plus, the consensus among editors is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for many topics in religious studies.
There is already discussion about ancient and pre-18th century criticism of astrology on the page. Not an improvement. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so we have two questions on the table. 1) was Astrology a pseudoscience before the 18th century? 2) was astrology criticized throughout its history prior to that?
As I said, the sources listed in the lead do not seem to support the text written there (18th century). Can you find support from your better sources? You've provided a nice list, however...
Thagard, who is pushing the historical relativistic point the hardest is a philosopher, but I'll accept him as relevant, and place against him Pigliucci who disagrees with him.
We are not allowed to decide which of them is correct nor give undue balance to one of their opinions. Especially since Thagard seems to have a spicy new take on it. He might be right to scold the stuffy old historians and their presentism, however, we don't just jump on any bandwagon that rolls by. Right now the longest paragraph in the lead pushes Thagard's position.
Now looking at your other sources. Do you have the books on hand? Can you provide author bios?
Tamsyn Barton, I can find nothing about then. Do you know what their credentials are?
As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.
But the following look legit to me:
Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.
Liba Taub also looks legit to me.
Hankinson is good too.
As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:
"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization." DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I've already mentioned that Pigliucci's self-published blog (in which he places words in Cicero's mouth) is not an improvement or "on equal footing" with Thagard's paper, which is an academic publication. The former is only relevant for Pigliucci's own views. In any case, there are not two questions on the table. There is only one question: do relevant, reliable sources support a 17th century date for the ascendance of astrology as a pseudoscience? The answer is a resounding "no."
Tamsyn Barton is an anthropologist specializing in the history of astrology, an alumnus of Oxford University and SOAS University of London, with a PhD from Cambridge University. Hanegraaff specializes in the history of astrology and dismissing his research is inane.
Lastly the only thing that matters with the Pfeffer source is that isn't relevant, it doesn't mention pseudoscience at all.
Feel free to check the sources. But if you do not have any sources that explicitly support a date in the 17th century for the recognition of astrology as a pseudoscience (which is borderline impossible, since the word didn't even exist in the 17th century) then refrain from editing the page to suggest such. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
As to Pigliucci's Notability you can't have a gripe, so under both WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PARITY, his "blog" is the professional opinion of a SECONDARY expert. And what he is saying there is completely in keeping with his published work and his relevant expertise. But don't worry, I have more sources coming. In the meantime...
Here is a Misplaced Pages essay that you might find useful. You can find it here: Misplaced Pages:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy. It's just an essay so doesn't carry the weight of Policy or Guideline, but still some food for thought, namely:
"Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway.
...
Being from a "major" (says who?) publisher is not proof that a source is reliable; it's just an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books – because at least one professional editor acted as a filter, and because other reliable sources cite material from this publisher on a regular basis."
Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:ABOUTSELF, elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. Thus, it would be an acceptable source for a statement like Pigliucci has stated that he believes astrology was a pseudoscience in antiquity (or something, a single parenthetical is not really notable here.) It would not be a reliable source for actually stating that astrology actually was a pseudoscience in antiquity, especially when a better-quality source (Thagard) says the opposite. A self-published Substack blog (scare quotes notwithstanding) where Pigliucci puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard for the date in which astrology becomes a pseudoscience.
WP:PARITY isn't really applicable, unless you're implying that Paul Thagard is a fringe source (he isn't.) As per your own quotation, academic publication is an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books. In this case, the academic sources given absolutely are more reliable than a single, off-hand parenthetical self-published by Pigliucci. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yay, we agree! We can indeed follow policy and say, per ABOUTSELF that Pigliucci an expert in pseudoscience, philosophy and science, a native speaker of Italian and a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers in particular, says that Cicero considered Astrology to be a pseudoscience. Would you like to put that in or should I? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
As I originally stated, a single parenthetical is not really notable here. It should not imply that such a view is comparable to the scholarly consensus -- which is that astrology was only recognized as a pseudoscience in the 18th century -- which is clearly what you're trying to do. As far as I know, Pigliucci is only a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers insofar as he's associated with modern Stoicism, anyway. He's not really a notable source for elucidating what Cicero thought about astrology, especially apparent since he puts the word pseudoscience in his mouth despite the fact that such a concept would be completely foreign to a first-century BCE academic skeptic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link to whichever of the many many non-indexed and often-paywalled posts in "Pigliucci's substack blog" that you all are referring to or quoting? I checked the history and no such thing has been posted; you both seem to know exactly what is being discussed, but there's no way anyone else can follow. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Mme Dolya is referencing this substack post (which is not an improvement on Thagard.) MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The post is paywalled, but you say it's consistent with his published work. The topic in question seems to be Pigliucci talking about Cicero criticizing astrology. Any references to that, that normal people can access from say a university or public library? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know nor particularly care if it's consistent with his published work. I don't think it's an appropriate source and even if he did say that Ciceroc had a conception of pseudoscience in antiquity, I wouldn't buy it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is Fernandez-Beanato making the case that Cicero is actually talking about pseudo science. "Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criterian"
Here is Pigliucci building on this. Sorry this is paywalled. Maybe I can get you a pdf if you are interested.
Pseudoscience: An Ancient Problem DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the arbcom decision that gives astrology as an example of pseudoscience, and wp's rules and guidelines that require us to clearly describe it as such early in the lead, without waffling or qualification.
The long and frankly exhausting arguments by a couple of people who nominally declare enthusiasm on the question of "who decided this when?" are not convincing, and don't meet the bar to break this policy. It would make the article worse.
To those who have been advocating for weakening the clear description as PS, maybe your thesis on "it wasn't PS until 18xx" can go briefly somewhere in the history section if you must, but keep it out of the lead. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There are no rules or guidelines which require us to mark something without qualification -- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology became a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an encyclopedic view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)
Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.) wound theology◈ 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Its still wrong in my opinion because astrology never claimed to be a modern science nor do any other divinatory practices. 1.132.25.24 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion is irrelevant. Only what is published in ] counts on Misplaced Pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the necropost, Hob. wound theology◈ 08:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that ... Cicero himself was an augur, a member of the college of officials who oversaw augury (Wynne 2019 p. 183)?

It's a bit tricky to use someone like Massimo Pigliucci, who is not an expert on Cicero and published this in a non-academic magazine like Skeptical Inquirer. Damian Fernandez-Beanato is much better already, but still not by any means a specialist in Cicero, or even in ancient philosophy.

It would be wise to compare Pigliucci's and Fernandez-Beanato's work with what some of the most respected ancient philosophy experts have written about this topic, such as Malcolm Schofield and A. A. Long (see Schofield 1986 (access possible via WP:LIBRARY) and Long 2005 (already used in the article)). Another useful source may be Wynne 2019, who is a Cicero expert but not a really well-established scholar as far as I know. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm late but here's my two cents: it's misleading to talk about "science" in the age of Cicero. While the ancients were doing what we'd call "proto-science", and while many Medieval thinkers were engaged in "natural philosophy" (what we call "science"), modern science as we understand it (a process involving empiricism, heavy reliance on mathematics, and results that can be tested and replicated) did not really emerge until the 16th Century at the earliest. So, the age of Galileo.
As to when astrology was widely recognized as "pseudoscience" -it's hard to tell. While Galileo was definitely doing empirical science (again, as we understand it), he was also involved in astrology. Even Newton was publishing on astrology in the 17th Century and it does not seem like this was anything unusual for a scientist of that age. I want to say the 18th Century was a turning point, and if that's what reliable sources say, it's probably accurate. The arguments about Cicero, while interesting, seem fringe. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In 2nd paragraph of Ancient World section, 7th line, please change "first dynasty of Mesopotamia" to "first dynasty of Babylon". (See pertinent Misplaced Pages chronology entries, e.g. in Chronology of the Ancient Near East.) Dubsarmah (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit was completed by another editor RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended

aph of Ancient World section, 7th line, pleas 202.168.94.17 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Aph? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

6 month before

Rohit 2409:40E5:1D:625E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying? Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, There is a permanent dead link in the article citation 110. I want to replace this link with a live link of an authentic article. Please allow me to edit the article citations by this link - https://www.astroculture.in/blog/discover-thechinese-zodiac/ AstroCulture (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AstroCulture:. I've updated the link. Unfortunately, the url that you have provided would not have worked. Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources. --McSly (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: