This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After discovering a citation requested by other editors and discussing it with Doc , it was agreed to to reinsert the disputed sentence and recall request for 3rd opinions and comment. Ramayan 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is the opening of this article entirely devoted to the perception of astrology as seen by people who aren't astrologers? It's not as though mainstream science doesn't get enough opportunities to devalue astrology. It would be a refreshing change of pace to portray how astrology is defined by the people who actually (gasp) practice it.
pixiequix 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A balance between differing viewpoints...how do they differ exactly? There are a couple of uninspired technical opinions, one is vaguely condescending while the other is just directly condescending. All the points of view are decidedly biased, but, oddly enough none are actually biased toward being supportive of the subject they're addressing!
pixiequix 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
While so much attention is being given to the lead, I've got a few ideas for improving it:
Sam, I think you're definitely on the right track for shaping this article into a respectful piece that everyone can enjoy. Great suggestions. pixiequix 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to Sam
"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source". So, it's important the refs are in the lead for the claims. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is starting to look a lot better, it's making great progress. Although there's one thing that still stands out as being somewhat biased or NPOV, and that's the sentence that reads:
"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread."
What this statement makes clear is that the only "correct" perspective for the reader to hold is one that's been proven correct by scientific evidence. This is simply not true. It also narrows the possible scope of the article before it even begins. And I feel that sentence in particular lends a distinct tone of superior smugness, as though it's subtly suggesting, "You're stupid if astrology is something you enjoy."
Can something be done about this? Thanks.
pixiequix 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the change back to the old wording. Like I said before, "despite lack of scientific evidence" implies to the reader that science is one universal standard of truth and if something has failed some applied empirical methodology it's rubbish. That's a scientific, rationalist POV on multiple accounts. Such wording would be acceptable if speaking on the belief in astrology among scientific circles, for example, but for the general population the text should not make such statements with an implied, but present nonetheless, bias. — Sam 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reference to vedic astrology from the opening. It may be a true statement, and relevant for the article, but it makes no sense at its current position in the opening. I doubt it should even be in the opening, where astrology is discussed in much more general terms. Whatever "vedic astrology" is supposedly replacing hasn't even been mentioned yet! It certainly has no place in the paragraph discussing scientific viewpoints on astrology. Please put it back, but at a more suitable place!!! --128.100.216.206 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Ramayan's revision of the lead because it's undue weight all around. The introduction, in my eyes, is meant to provide an overview of what's discussed in the text. A short, concise bit about astrology's relation to science here is warranted because the view that astrology isn't a science is a substantial one. That said, it should not be blown out of proportion. Don't debate in the lead. Leave the details in the body text. Regarding the bit about Vedic astrology's increasing popularity, I agree with Philosophus. It's a non-sequitur; it doesn't fit in with the context, nor is it particularly relevant. — Sam 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Ramayans changes to the lead paragraph - details on what branch of astrology seems to be on the rise right now is not opening paragraph material. I am more than willing to discuss this, but from what I see above Ramayan does not really try to argue why this one claim should be in the opening paragraph. I won't argue the veracity of it, since this is better left to atrologers, but I just cannot see how it fits here (ie. I agree with Sams last summation above). I will revert this change until presented with arguments that at least ty to convince me otherwise, and if Ramayan persists in violating the 3R rule, I will support action against him. Lundse 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As is standard practice, I suggest the criticism of astrology be moved out of the opening paragraph into own section, and prefereably into its own article. It is a sepearte field of inquiry and generally based on lack of knowledge of astrology and with an aim to discredit it due to inherent axiomatic bias (POV). It does not do astrology justice to have the article highlight it in the opening paragraph. Ramayan 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to be very direct for a moment here.
An opinion that's widely shared between western astrologers who are worth their salt, is that astrology is a symbolic language. From the viewpoint of the universe as a macrocosm, and human life as its microcosm, astrology is most accurately used and defined as an abstract symbolic language used to offer insight into the possible meaning of our existence. [2] [3]
I understand that Wikipedia is essentially run by the new generation of gatekeeper skeptics, but I believe they should gracefully step aside and allow those who practice this ancient discipline to represent themselves. It's the most logical course of affairs to allow those who know the topic to write about it. And when it becomes necessary to add the obligatory objections and criticisms, there would be no shortage of availability. pixiequix 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, the conformity cops? And besides, you seem to be missing a large portion of the point I'm trying to make. Which is that scientific facts are of little or no concern to the practice of astrology itself. Just because main stream science seems to have a vendetta with astrologers who insist that their work is completely scientific, does not mean that it's the opinion of the majority of astrologers.
As an active student of astrology myself, I can say with certainty that only a small minority of astrologers view it as strictly science. The rest of us, which is definitely the majority, know that we couldn't cast a chart without cetain scientific variables. But that in the modern age of computers, the science involved is the tiniest fraction of the actual practice. This is why no astrologer can rightly say that science has no involvement whatsoever, because it does, but many of us are so sick and tired of being bullied, that we fail to mention that any science involved also happens to be one of the smallest details involved in our skilled and demanding practice!
So, here's my question: How does a subject with so little to do with science remain under the jurisdiction of pseudoscientific subjects? And why does the opinion according to the scientific community have anything to do with defining or discussing its practice, let alone free reign over the content of an entire article?
pixiequix 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the previous way the traditions were handled was much cleaner than the new approach. Further, not all of the previously termed "Esoteric" traditions are Medieval or "early modern" in their history. And what exactly does Renaissance magic got to do with anything? These edits were justified in saying they should be chronologically ordered, but they already were. Please provide some further reasoning. — Sam 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Esoteric astrology is a valid separate branch of astrology, it even has its own unique system of rulerships. I think it's strange that there would be a link to Renaissance Magic also, especially since the relationship between the traditional and esoteric branches of astrology is somewhat contentious! To find more information about the esoteric school, subjects like
Alice Bailey and
Theosophy are good places to start.
pixiequix 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted in the talk page header, Category:Astrological factors is being considered for deletion. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. — Sam 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
With this astrology program I will like to connect Astronomy and Astrology to gether, besides for better understanding a Horocope chart in 3 Solar System. Lots of people do not understant a horoscope chart. This program also gives 3 dimensional horoscope chart. Who realy intrested with astrology ı think like to see it in 3 dimensional horoscope. If you think this is useless, then do not give a link. It took me a lot of time to do it. And my site is not commercial. -- 88.241.66.1 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Lundse 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a revelation sometime in the late 1990s that astrologers had been using the wrong calendar or something? What is the deal with this, and why is it not in the article? I remember this made big headlines back then. - Rolypolyman 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
is wrong. The correct form is "αστήρ, αστρός (astér, astrós)", period.
signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent additions regarding astrology and science need to be reviewed for neutrality and undue weight. As it stands I feel there is far too much of a leaning towards a scientific POV. I'd appreciate hearing other appraisals of the text. Samuel Grant 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with your suggestion. I would propose that our first task is to see what the consensus is on this section. According to the above discussion, there needs to be some balancing of views here. There is plenty of positive evidence in support of astrology that is not being presented. On the other hand, every insignificant and faulty 'scientific' attempt to discredit astrology was being quoted before. As is, the section is still out of balance. Do you agree with this view? Aquirata 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread." is not neutral and should be removed. "Despite the lack of scientific evidence" conveys to the reader that astrology has been falsified by empirical methods every time they have been attempted, which is untrue. The issue of scientific proof is extremely controversial anyway, with research by both those against and for astrology containing errors, too small sampling, problems in their reasoning, etc. Not to spark a debate over that particular issue itself, but it makes this topic all the more demanding of a neutral point of view, which is absolutely "non-negotiable" in any case (quoted from WP:NPOV).
The second part of the sentence is sourced and informative, but without its biased counterpart I cannot think of where to put it in the article where it would hold relevancy in and of itself. Samuel Grant 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Fixed" how? The entire premise of the sentence is biased. It should be removed. Samuel Grant 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Astrology, the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies—particularly the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars—in the belief that they correspond to events on Earth.
Astrologers believe that the position of astronomical bodies at the exact moment of a person’s birth and the subsequent movements of the bodies reflect that person’s character and, therefore, his or her destiny. Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.
Type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.
Form of divination based on the theory that the movements of the celestial bodies—the stars, the planets, the sun, and the moon—influence human affairs and determine the course of events.
In countries such as India, where only a small intellectual elite has been trained in Western physics, astrology manages to retain here and there its position among the sciences. Its continued legitimacy is demonstrated by the fact that some Indian universities offer advanced degrees in astrology.
In the West, however, Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology, yet Western astrology is far from dead, as demonstrated by the strong popular following it gained in the 1960s. There were even attempts to reestablish a firm theoretical basis for it, notably by the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin in his The Scientific Basis of Astrology (1964), though with results that are at best inconclusive.
You seem to be missing my point entirely. It is not whether astrology has or has not been validated by scientific methods (and I explicitly stated I would prefer not hash out that debate anyway). The question here is neutrality, which at its core ensures that readers are allowed to think on their own. This sentence strongly conveys (at least to me) that astrology's premise of an earth-sky correlation has been consistently and 100% falsified by scientific methods which is simply untrue. The sentence, however true it may be, is a violation of the NPOV policy in that it is spoon-feeding the reader an outcome of a dispute which it has already decided. Do you see my reasoning at all? There is sufficient voicing of the general scientific community anyway: not a mere sentence before it clearly gives voice to that particular view. Samuel Grant 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For the second time, I'd like to ask you to stop making rude comments. What I'm "on about" is trying to get a little compensatory background into this discussion, as it appears to me your understanding of the topic is rather lacking.
Regarding the contended sentence, I think that one of the primary issues is the choice of words.
The definition of the word "despite" is "Contemptuous defiance or disregard." [4] In this context, the perceived authority that's being disregarded or defied is scientific evidence. This implied POV sends a subtle, but clear, message to the reader that there's no real truth without empirical scientific evidence. And while science has its place in society, it is not the absolute and final authority on reality or truth.
Also, to a certain extent, the word "despite" could be considered a pejorative, or a weasel word.
pixiequix 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the small paragraph that contained the disputed sentence. I think it's much more straight forward, and gives equal consideration to the differing points of view in a neutral language.
I didn't incorporate the sentiment expressed in the disputed sentence because I believe that if an explanation was given for the scientific POV of astrology, then an explanation would need to be given for every other POV as well. And that would add considerable drag to an already lengthy opening.
If it's reverted or rewritten, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the change, to see if there's a possibility for compromise.
Thank you.
pixiequix 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You cling to that single paragraph of Wikipedia policy as if it were your own personal dogma, and as though it were the only standard for a Wikipedia editor to follow. Why don't you go and edit a topic that you care passionately about, and not continue to obstruct the editing of topics you're passionately against?
My revision of that small paragraph was perfectly neutral and non-biased, and you know it. You changed it out of spite and to suit your own personal bigotry. It's obvious you've got no actual concern for the topic or those who might read about it.
pixiequix 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph is full of unverifed, unsourced statements that did not conform to WP:V. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We have been through this time and again: it is a pseudo-science, we have great sources for that, it is the majority view of relevant experts and nobody gets to decide what merits they are judged by (that would be NPOV). The overview/introduction should mention what astrology is - it does, even alongside the proponent's view, in a fair manner. And we are not out to write what is "tolerable" to anyone, we are out to write the truth and we use guidelines of eg. verifiability to do so. Lundse ( talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the point about how the majority of astrologers essentially define it, here is one relevant quote: “Astrology shows the cosmic source and background for the working of forces in any field of endeavor...it shows the basic language of cosmic energy.” David Frawley, The Astrology of the Seers. Passage Press, Salt Lake City, UT, 1990. I could dig up a ton of these quotes in my library, if absolutely necessary. Rumbird ( talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has slapped me with a 3RR warning. You science types really band together to save the world from other points of view. No one listens to logic (see my above message). Is this all that Wikipedia has to offer in terms of developing a fair presentation? The biggest clique wins? I´m sorry, but I think the NPOV tag has to come back. Rumbird ( talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Historically, astrologers have defined astrology as a symbolic language, based either on portents or direct cosmic influences on human life[3][4][5]. Accordingly, they view it either as a science[6] or an art form[7]. Will this work. Rumbird ( talk) 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Below are seven quotes from respected but very different astrologers that reveal an implicit consensus among them as to what astrology is and is not. The difficulty with astrology is that most of its authors fall under the definition of "fringe". While it is true that some authors have developed quite a following, such as Charles E. O. Carter and Alan Leo in London, to my knowledge it has not had the result of creating a formal statement of consensus. The quotes by E. Parker and Margaret Hone below show also that astrologers have been fighting an uphill battle with regard to prejudices and attacks from the science communities and political establishment, literally pushing them undergound, which makes consensus harder to develop. However, through a perusal of many disparate texts, a common modern view emerges of astrologers from around the world, even if there are notable differences in emphasis, that astrology is indeed a language of symbols, to interpret the influences from the cosmos on human life. It is both a science and art, but as Margaret Hone explains, the nuances and complexity of astrology make it's propositions hard to prove in the most rigorous scientific fashion. Finally, some of the quotes also bring out the meta aspect of astrology, that it deals with the inner reality of the human experience, based on the spirit and its relation with God. This cardinal axiomatic difference between astrology and the " nihilist materialism" of science is perhaps the most glaring cause for the attacks by the "scientists" of the Age of Enlightenment on astrology. It is a fight between two radically different world views, or paradigms. Enjoy! Rumbird ( talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote 1:
Quote 2:
Quote 3:
Quote 4:
Quote 5:
Quote 6:
Quote 7:
These are indeed fascinating insights. However, you said yourself that there really isn't a formal consensus on what astrology actually is, and this is my key concern. Overall I still believe it is a lot fairer to the diversity of astrological opinion to give the differing definitions, rather than settling on one view. Jefffire ( talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The information is relevant in this section, with a NPOV it can stay. This section was depending too heavily on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Linking to the work of more researchers will only improve its value as a reference in this subject. To the guy that erased it because it doesn't have credibility: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Wikipedia is not about truth. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Tarnas' work satisfies this criteria, to the point of having his own Wikipedia article. And it's relevant to the subject discussed. For me, that's enough to have the link. As long as it's written in such a way that it doesn't endorses, nor denies the validity of his claims. Diego ( talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the research section, perhaps someone could make mention of the fact that Michel Gauquelin's research continues to this day? There's 50+ years worth of documented statistical research in the
Gauquelin archives. I'd make the addition myself, but I have no patience for the petty revert wars that erupt every time someone makes an edit which is at all supportive of astrology.
pixiequix ( talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have frequented this article for much of the nearly three years I have been on Wikipedia. In that time I have tried my best to improve this article, as the subject is one that I have a deep curiosity of and, at least, an adequate respect for. Yet astrology as a multi-thousand year old system, as an extremely multifaceted topic, as a group of traditions that has done more than its fair share of influencing culture and academia throughout history, seems to get only one concern here: does it work?
While the same arguments get endlessly rehashed and the same edit wars ensue over and over again concerning its validity, vital information about its history, development, transmission, etc. get ignored. One would think with all the endless fuss the text about its validity would at the very least accurately and faithfully portray the situation, yet that segment is pitiful as well. Instead of editors who genuinely want to improve the article, I see a constant trickle of pompous apostles of science who haven't a clue about astrology other than what popular scientific opinion informs them. But, you must be saying to yourself, this is a wiki! Anyone can come along and balance the over-represented point of view. Yes, that is the concept, but in practice it is not always so, for the representatives of other points of view have to be present in the first place. All constructive members except for a very few have all been run off by ignorant, rude editors simply out to push a point of view they have hardly begun to understand anyway, leaving the remainder to fill up another 13 pages worth of incessant quibbling and the article to stagnate in mediocrity.
I have made a plea before to stop putting so much undue focus on one topic, to quit the endless bickering and demeaning, to finally get some attention elsewhere, yet my request appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I look at important sections about this topic's history and practice and I see unverified claims. I see a constant onslaught of rabid members of the Church of Science out to belittle a topic they haven't a clue about. I see an article in a rather lackluster state, and few hopes of any editors to come along and help improve it.
I'm permanently removing this article from my watchlist. Those of you who I have butted heads with in the past may think as you wish of me, but it is the education and freedom of thought of the uninformed masses you are hurting. Samuel Grant 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The question of validity is a major part of this subject, and hence the section will always be a flash-point. Wikipedia's weighting guidelines are such that mainstream sources with a good scientific reputation will always receive greater preference that niche or disreputable sources, and this is the way things should be for us to build a reliable article. Jefffire 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
" Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, the number of people engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting in astrology is quite large and belief in astrology remains widespread in the general public."
For a list of Professional astrologers/ astrology associations: [ [7]] [ [8]] [ [9]] Rumbird 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
" Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, thousands of astrologers around the world are engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting based on their knowledge and experience of astrology and belief in it remains widespread in the general public."
Nagarajaprasad ( talk) 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nagaraja Prasad:- Now, Vorpal blade, I believe you shouldn't have mixed God and Astrology.BELIEF IN GOD AND ASTROLOGY ARE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY. Let me explain this simple fact: 1. Question: What is God? Answer: In part, we understand God to be an all powerful, all pervading supreme spirit who controls our birth, death and whatever happens between birth and death, at the least. So one prays god to fulfill one’s wishes. The wish may be to get more wealth, more happiness, a sweet wife, a caring husband or good health. Of course the list is endless. But what is certain is when one who prays God; one also believes that God has the power to influence the events in one’s life. One therefore prays God to change the events to his/ her advantage and hopes God will heed to one’s prayers. 2. Question: What is Astrology? Answer: In short, Astrology predicts future events. One does this by careful study of influence of Cosmos on life on Earth (It is rather amusing that of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets, only a few cosmic elements affect the events in one’s life). Or one may choose Palmistry, and correlate the myriad lines on palm to prophesize. Whatever be the method, one can predict future only if the future events are frozen in time. If future is not frozen, and if one has a way to shape future events, then nobody can prophesize. For, nobody would know how events unfold. Take for example my death. An astrologer can predict my age at death only if my death is frozen in time. Say, my death is frozen in time at 75 years. Only then, can an astrologer say that I will die at 75. If I have a way to change 75, to 65 or 85, nobody can predict my death. Only when events are actualized would we be certain of what has happened.
One wants God to heed to one’s wishes and shape future events to his/ her advantage. I don’t want to die at 75! So one believes future events can be changed, and is not frozen in time. And again, one goes to an astrologer to know ones future. Now, the astrologer can’t tell your future. Not if you believe in God. That is plain logic.
Now, I hope all believers will give up on Astrology. And an agnostic would any way doubt both the Astrologer and God.
"Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation."
I couldn't agree more. It's a pathetic state of affairs.
I'm sorry to see you go Sam, but I totally understand.
pixiequix ( talk) 12:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if it isn't already clear to everyone involved, it appears that one of the astrologers who has recently contested one of the opening paragraphs on the page is engaging in creating sock puppets in order to 'win' the revert war and sidestep the 3RR rule. Since User:Rumbird was the guy who originally seems to have started the edit war on that paragraph, and he was already warned once recently for violating the 3RR rule, he is the prime suspect, although it seems that User:Budfin is getting in on it now as well, so he could also be the culprit. Whoever it is, I think that it is ridiculous and disgraceful. Actually it is more embarrassing than anything else, because I'm an astrologer as well, and this is the type of stuff that makes the rest of us look bad- or, worse I should say. The current sock puppets appear to be User:Ali the Munificent, User:Random-chess, and User:SciFiApostle. Their edit histories make this apparent. If anyone knows any high level admins could you please ask them to do an IP check and ban this guy? -- Chris Brennan ( talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. -- rpd ( talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The graphic illustrating the astrological symbols for the plants still lists Pluto as a planet. Does anyone have a more updated graphic illustrating the symbols sans Pluto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.203.130 ( talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive a poor newby, but I couldn't resist trying to get in on the action, even though I barely have a clue about your protocols. After reading the section on "Research" in the astrology article, I am dubious about the claim that Gauquelin's hypothesis about the "Mars Effect" has actually been "refuted". Is this in the new journalistic sense I've run across lately, where "refute" is used as a synonym for "disagree with"? Do the references cited actually refute Gauquelin's work? From what I know, reference #52 should not be included as support. Please see the article by Dennis Rawlins in Fate, (34, October, 1981). This whole effort by CSICOP was a fiasco, and a black eye to science. In fact, this failed attempt to rig the results against astrology deserve some mention in this article, since it shows that science is a human enterprise. Worse still was the attempt the organization made to cover up the initial fraud. I have not yet been able to find the other two references cited to support this "refutation". Any responses? Kevinl.8creamynougat ( talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am trying another way to post a comment on this page. Please bear with this poor newby. The claim in the "Research" section that Gauquelin's hypothesis of the "Mars effect" has been refuted seems quite dubious to me, given one of the source listed, with no further comment ["Since its original publication... which refute it...."]. I refer to reference note #52, the 1977 article in The Humanist. This paper has been thoroughly discredited as science, and so has the subsequent conspiracy to cover up the original errors and misguided claims. See the long article sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins in Fate (34, October, 1981). I have not yet had a chance to read the other two articles, but I now wonder if anyone else has either, or if it is enough that they attack astrology. Science is never served by bad science, no matter how seeming deserving its targets seem to be. Quite the contrary, when scientists misuse the status of science, they undermine the belief of the public, i.e., non-scientists.( Kevinl.8creamynougat ( talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to know the reason for the absence of biblical reference. If there was any at all discussions previously also. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows for example the meaning of "nominative" and "genitive", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 ( talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This has gone back and forth a few times between several people, including me, so I thought this might be the best place to discuss it. I'm new, so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place.
The dispute is between the following two sentence versions in the article intro:
"Astrology is often defined as the study of the supposed influences of the cosmos on life on earth."
and
"Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth."
I -- and apparently some others further down in the edit history -- favor the latter, and still others favor the former, on the grounds that such influences have never been proved and that there is no consensus that they exist at all.
I do not dispute this (and apparently neither do my predecessors). Such influences have, indeed, never been proved to the general satisfaction of the scientific community. This doesn't matter, however, because this statement is a description of a definition, and is not an assertion affirming the existence of any underlying reality.
To illustrate what I mean, as I tried perhaps too briefly to do in my edit-comment: I believe the following to be an acceptable example of a neutral, objective statement:
"Theology is often defined as the study of God."
Of course it is. This is, objectively, a logically and factually true statement, because it describes a definition of theology. This statement makes no assertion at all about the actual existence of God (the object of the study).
Likewise, "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is a description of a definition, and is not logically or connotatively equivalent to implying that such influences actually exist; the sentence isn't about such influences at all, in fact, but only about defining "astrology."
That's the argument from one angle.
The argument from another angle is that with the addition of "...the supposed...", the statement is actually made false. Astrology in its own context is never defined as the study of "supposed" influences. In fact, one can't actually study "supposed influences." It's defined as the study of "influences." One can study something -- empirically or otherwise -- without knowing in advance whether or not it even exists: physicists do it all the time. Hence the definition doesn't imply the existence or nonexistence of such influences; it merely describes a process of study, and the subject to which that process is applied. Valravn ( talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there someone who can give a convincing reason why the Hermetism template should be on this astrology article? If no explanation is forthcoming, I may soon remove that template. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) ( talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a question: Suppose one day our civilization expands to encompass multiple star systems, or equally, that one day we encounter an alien civilization. The question then is, what validity could astrology have, since it inherently assumes the configuration of our own star system?
Suppose humans establish a colony on a planet orbiting another star. Does our astrology still apply to them, or do we need to devise some new astrology, based on the planets that exist in their star system? Does every star system have its own system of astrology? Is there some formula we can use to construct the astrological interpretation of an arbitrary star system, or are such interpretations purely arbitrary? Suppose we were to adopt such an interpretation -- what if we encountered an alien civilization which had devised a system of astrological interpretations which could not be made to conform to our generic model?
Let us suppose I am born in this star system. I therefore have a natal chart. The assumption being, that my continued presence in this star system, causes the positions of the planets at the time of my birth to have a continued influence. Now, suppose I then move, by means of interstellar travel, to another star system. Am I then governed by that star system's planets or by the planets of the original star system? Do I need to redraw a natal chart by the new star system, or do I keep my original natal chart?
More troubling for adherents of astrology -- since the theories of relativity deny the existence of simultaneity, I cannot necessarily identify times between distant locations, e.g. multiple star systems. So, if I was born at time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. Equally, if right now is time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. The result is, that, it appears, astrological influences cannot pass between systems.
And, while I am on an interstellar spaceship, between the two systems -- how does astrology govern my life then?
In terms of the future evolution of our civilization, interstellar travel is probably a long way off -- and the question of when and/or if verifiable contact with extraterrestrial civilizations will occur is essentially unanswerable. But lunar or Martian colonies are probably much closer. If I am on a lunar or Martian colony, how does astrology effect my life? It would seem obvious that, if there is any validity to astrology at all, that Earth-bound astrology cannot apply while on the moon or Mars or in space. And yet, if it cannot apply, what should apply in its stead? When the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, or were in transit to or from it, what astrological influences applied to them? -- SJK ( talk) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What false assumption? And I am not an astrologer, nor am, dwelling upon the surface of this planet, any more in space than you or most other people are. Yet, I suppose, sometimes in order to challenge others' beliefs, you must start from an assumption of accepting them. Reductio ad absurdum, as it were...
One further consideration -- among systems of divination, astrology alone seems to have problems with space travel. Consider e.g. numerology, or cartomancy (e.g. Tarot cards). Whatever different problems these systems may have, their applicability across different locations in the universe is not obviously an issue, unlike astrology. -- SJK ( talk) 11:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Was this correct, or does "them" refer to the astrologers themselves? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte reverted my edit citing WP:WTA. I proceeded to read that page (it has been years) and found how its undue weight given to negative uses of claim made it inaccurate. I rewrote the section, and have submitted that change to the WP:WTA talk page (and #IRC) for review. Note that Verbal also made a similar edit, which Cosmic Latte also reverted.- Ste vertigo 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And this is an unnecessary flourish. While not explicitly false (yes, astrology's adherents do believe this), its presence is implying something, and to me it suggests that non-adherents might believe something other than what is being asserted in the article. I fail to see, however, what the alternative to that proposition, as exactly worded, might be. The wording that I am advocating is the following: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." Not even the most hard-core skeptic would deny that, according to this "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs," celestial knowledge aids in psycho-social understanding and interpretation. For the sake of comparison, if I say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial. The fact that I, personally, do not subscribe to such an interpretation might motivate me to attribute it to an outgroup: to "them," "the other guy," or, if I'm feeling formal, "adherents." But if I follow through with this and say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, claim the adherents of such an interpretation, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," then at best I'm suggesting, not that there are alternative interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather that there are alternative understandings of what it means to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. So if we call astrology a system of beliefs, and then qualify that with a phrase like "according to adherents," we're suggesting (if we are indeed editing without bias toward alternatives to astrology as a whole) that there is an internal debate about what astrological beliefs entail. Put differently, saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs according to which X and Y are true" is enough to allow for the existence of those who do not share those beliefs; but saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs in which adherents believe X and Y" makes room for the possibility that astrology is a system of beliefs in which someone else believes Z and A. There is no discussion in the article about such an internal debate, in which someone actually contests the lead's attribution of a celestial-terrestrial link to the astrological "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs." So there's no need to define astrology in terms of its (e.g., conflicting) adherents or in terms of any other people. It is a concept, an abstraction, relative to which X and Y are true. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad were all being communicative and discussing it. I also appreciate Cosmic's willingness to listen to us, and abandoning his tactic of labelling any qualifying language as "unnecessary flourish." We're past the hard part. I agree that Nunh-huh's version is much better, and may be a good compromise:
But this version, while fulfilling 90% of the requirement for qualifying attribution, is not ideal for three specific reasons: 1) The word "hold" is not the clearest term, and other words would work better: "claims to", "maintains that," "asserts that," and "hold's that" are the ones that come to mind. Any others? (PS: "According to adherents" appears to be quite necessary). Among my concerns is how "hold" translates quite ambiguously, (we can test it at http://translate.google.com ) while "claim", "states" and "asserts" do not. Let's put that issue aside for now.
The second issue is 2) the usage of "can" may not be accurate, as astrologists may not be qualifying about astrology itself, their skills in astrology, and the results of a particular consultation. In otherwords, I'm asserting the correctness of the statement: 'astrology is a system of beliefs that [attributive qualifier] does [in fact] provide useful information about...' Is this not true about astrology, that astrologists assert its validity? Is this not true even when a particular astrologer may be qualify their practice and particular sessions with a disclaimer?
The third issue 3) deals with the object of the assertion: "[Astrology.. "can provide"] useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters..." A major aspect missing here is the precognitive dimension of astrology —astrologers claim to give "useful information" about not just "terrestrial matters" (eughk!) but 'extra-terrestrial' matters such as the future; future relationships, future job prospects, future directions in life, etc.
Anyway, enough for now. Those are my concerns. - Ste vertigo 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge. Astrological influences included the observation and long-term tracking of celestial objects. It was astrologers who provided the first systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were indistinguishable in ancient Babylonia and medieval Europe, but separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world."
This is not a critical article at all, I'm surprised there aren't premium horoscope phone number appearing under each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.212.196 ( talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After discovering a citation requested by other editors and discussing it with Doc , it was agreed to to reinsert the disputed sentence and recall request for 3rd opinions and comment. Ramayan 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is the opening of this article entirely devoted to the perception of astrology as seen by people who aren't astrologers? It's not as though mainstream science doesn't get enough opportunities to devalue astrology. It would be a refreshing change of pace to portray how astrology is defined by the people who actually (gasp) practice it.
pixiequix 09:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A balance between differing viewpoints...how do they differ exactly? There are a couple of uninspired technical opinions, one is vaguely condescending while the other is just directly condescending. All the points of view are decidedly biased, but, oddly enough none are actually biased toward being supportive of the subject they're addressing!
pixiequix 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
While so much attention is being given to the lead, I've got a few ideas for improving it:
Sam, I think you're definitely on the right track for shaping this article into a respectful piece that everyone can enjoy. Great suggestions. pixiequix 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
In response to Sam
"The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source". So, it's important the refs are in the lead for the claims. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is starting to look a lot better, it's making great progress. Although there's one thing that still stands out as being somewhat biased or NPOV, and that's the sentence that reads:
"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread."
What this statement makes clear is that the only "correct" perspective for the reader to hold is one that's been proven correct by scientific evidence. This is simply not true. It also narrows the possible scope of the article before it even begins. And I feel that sentence in particular lends a distinct tone of superior smugness, as though it's subtly suggesting, "You're stupid if astrology is something you enjoy."
Can something be done about this? Thanks.
pixiequix 12:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the change back to the old wording. Like I said before, "despite lack of scientific evidence" implies to the reader that science is one universal standard of truth and if something has failed some applied empirical methodology it's rubbish. That's a scientific, rationalist POV on multiple accounts. Such wording would be acceptable if speaking on the belief in astrology among scientific circles, for example, but for the general population the text should not make such statements with an implied, but present nonetheless, bias. — Sam 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reference to vedic astrology from the opening. It may be a true statement, and relevant for the article, but it makes no sense at its current position in the opening. I doubt it should even be in the opening, where astrology is discussed in much more general terms. Whatever "vedic astrology" is supposedly replacing hasn't even been mentioned yet! It certainly has no place in the paragraph discussing scientific viewpoints on astrology. Please put it back, but at a more suitable place!!! --128.100.216.206 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Ramayan's revision of the lead because it's undue weight all around. The introduction, in my eyes, is meant to provide an overview of what's discussed in the text. A short, concise bit about astrology's relation to science here is warranted because the view that astrology isn't a science is a substantial one. That said, it should not be blown out of proportion. Don't debate in the lead. Leave the details in the body text. Regarding the bit about Vedic astrology's increasing popularity, I agree with Philosophus. It's a non-sequitur; it doesn't fit in with the context, nor is it particularly relevant. — Sam 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Ramayans changes to the lead paragraph - details on what branch of astrology seems to be on the rise right now is not opening paragraph material. I am more than willing to discuss this, but from what I see above Ramayan does not really try to argue why this one claim should be in the opening paragraph. I won't argue the veracity of it, since this is better left to atrologers, but I just cannot see how it fits here (ie. I agree with Sams last summation above). I will revert this change until presented with arguments that at least ty to convince me otherwise, and if Ramayan persists in violating the 3R rule, I will support action against him. Lundse 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As is standard practice, I suggest the criticism of astrology be moved out of the opening paragraph into own section, and prefereably into its own article. It is a sepearte field of inquiry and generally based on lack of knowledge of astrology and with an aim to discredit it due to inherent axiomatic bias (POV). It does not do astrology justice to have the article highlight it in the opening paragraph. Ramayan 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to be very direct for a moment here.
An opinion that's widely shared between western astrologers who are worth their salt, is that astrology is a symbolic language. From the viewpoint of the universe as a macrocosm, and human life as its microcosm, astrology is most accurately used and defined as an abstract symbolic language used to offer insight into the possible meaning of our existence. [2] [3]
I understand that Wikipedia is essentially run by the new generation of gatekeeper skeptics, but I believe they should gracefully step aside and allow those who practice this ancient discipline to represent themselves. It's the most logical course of affairs to allow those who know the topic to write about it. And when it becomes necessary to add the obligatory objections and criticisms, there would be no shortage of availability. pixiequix 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, the conformity cops? And besides, you seem to be missing a large portion of the point I'm trying to make. Which is that scientific facts are of little or no concern to the practice of astrology itself. Just because main stream science seems to have a vendetta with astrologers who insist that their work is completely scientific, does not mean that it's the opinion of the majority of astrologers.
As an active student of astrology myself, I can say with certainty that only a small minority of astrologers view it as strictly science. The rest of us, which is definitely the majority, know that we couldn't cast a chart without cetain scientific variables. But that in the modern age of computers, the science involved is the tiniest fraction of the actual practice. This is why no astrologer can rightly say that science has no involvement whatsoever, because it does, but many of us are so sick and tired of being bullied, that we fail to mention that any science involved also happens to be one of the smallest details involved in our skilled and demanding practice!
So, here's my question: How does a subject with so little to do with science remain under the jurisdiction of pseudoscientific subjects? And why does the opinion according to the scientific community have anything to do with defining or discussing its practice, let alone free reign over the content of an entire article?
pixiequix 08:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the previous way the traditions were handled was much cleaner than the new approach. Further, not all of the previously termed "Esoteric" traditions are Medieval or "early modern" in their history. And what exactly does Renaissance magic got to do with anything? These edits were justified in saying they should be chronologically ordered, but they already were. Please provide some further reasoning. — Sam 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Esoteric astrology is a valid separate branch of astrology, it even has its own unique system of rulerships. I think it's strange that there would be a link to Renaissance Magic also, especially since the relationship between the traditional and esoteric branches of astrology is somewhat contentious! To find more information about the esoteric school, subjects like
Alice Bailey and
Theosophy are good places to start.
pixiequix 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted in the talk page header, Category:Astrological factors is being considered for deletion. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. — Sam 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
With this astrology program I will like to connect Astronomy and Astrology to gether, besides for better understanding a Horocope chart in 3 Solar System. Lots of people do not understant a horoscope chart. This program also gives 3 dimensional horoscope chart. Who realy intrested with astrology ı think like to see it in 3 dimensional horoscope. If you think this is useless, then do not give a link. It took me a lot of time to do it. And my site is not commercial. -- 88.241.66.1 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Lundse 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a revelation sometime in the late 1990s that astrologers had been using the wrong calendar or something? What is the deal with this, and why is it not in the article? I remember this made big headlines back then. - Rolypolyman 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
is wrong. The correct form is "αστήρ, αστρός (astér, astrós)", period.
signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent additions regarding astrology and science need to be reviewed for neutrality and undue weight. As it stands I feel there is far too much of a leaning towards a scientific POV. I'd appreciate hearing other appraisals of the text. Samuel Grant 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with your suggestion. I would propose that our first task is to see what the consensus is on this section. According to the above discussion, there needs to be some balancing of views here. There is plenty of positive evidence in support of astrology that is not being presented. On the other hand, every insignificant and faulty 'scientific' attempt to discredit astrology was being quoted before. As is, the section is still out of balance. Do you agree with this view? Aquirata 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Despite the lack of scientific evidence, belief in astrology remains widespread." is not neutral and should be removed. "Despite the lack of scientific evidence" conveys to the reader that astrology has been falsified by empirical methods every time they have been attempted, which is untrue. The issue of scientific proof is extremely controversial anyway, with research by both those against and for astrology containing errors, too small sampling, problems in their reasoning, etc. Not to spark a debate over that particular issue itself, but it makes this topic all the more demanding of a neutral point of view, which is absolutely "non-negotiable" in any case (quoted from WP:NPOV).
The second part of the sentence is sourced and informative, but without its biased counterpart I cannot think of where to put it in the article where it would hold relevancy in and of itself. Samuel Grant 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Fixed" how? The entire premise of the sentence is biased. It should be removed. Samuel Grant 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Astrology, the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies—particularly the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars—in the belief that they correspond to events on Earth.
Astrologers believe that the position of astronomical bodies at the exact moment of a person’s birth and the subsequent movements of the bodies reflect that person’s character and, therefore, his or her destiny. Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.
Type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets. Devotees believe that an understanding of the influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs allows them to both predict and affect the destinies of individuals, groups, and nations. Though often regarded as a science throughout its history, astrology is widely considered today to be diametrically opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western science.
Form of divination based on the theory that the movements of the celestial bodies—the stars, the planets, the sun, and the moon—influence human affairs and determine the course of events.
In countries such as India, where only a small intellectual elite has been trained in Western physics, astrology manages to retain here and there its position among the sciences. Its continued legitimacy is demonstrated by the fact that some Indian universities offer advanced degrees in astrology.
In the West, however, Newtonian physics and Enlightenment rationalism largely eradicated the widespread belief in astrology, yet Western astrology is far from dead, as demonstrated by the strong popular following it gained in the 1960s. There were even attempts to reestablish a firm theoretical basis for it, notably by the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin in his The Scientific Basis of Astrology (1964), though with results that are at best inconclusive.
You seem to be missing my point entirely. It is not whether astrology has or has not been validated by scientific methods (and I explicitly stated I would prefer not hash out that debate anyway). The question here is neutrality, which at its core ensures that readers are allowed to think on their own. This sentence strongly conveys (at least to me) that astrology's premise of an earth-sky correlation has been consistently and 100% falsified by scientific methods which is simply untrue. The sentence, however true it may be, is a violation of the NPOV policy in that it is spoon-feeding the reader an outcome of a dispute which it has already decided. Do you see my reasoning at all? There is sufficient voicing of the general scientific community anyway: not a mere sentence before it clearly gives voice to that particular view. Samuel Grant 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For the second time, I'd like to ask you to stop making rude comments. What I'm "on about" is trying to get a little compensatory background into this discussion, as it appears to me your understanding of the topic is rather lacking.
Regarding the contended sentence, I think that one of the primary issues is the choice of words.
The definition of the word "despite" is "Contemptuous defiance or disregard." [4] In this context, the perceived authority that's being disregarded or defied is scientific evidence. This implied POV sends a subtle, but clear, message to the reader that there's no real truth without empirical scientific evidence. And while science has its place in society, it is not the absolute and final authority on reality or truth.
Also, to a certain extent, the word "despite" could be considered a pejorative, or a weasel word.
pixiequix 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the small paragraph that contained the disputed sentence. I think it's much more straight forward, and gives equal consideration to the differing points of view in a neutral language.
I didn't incorporate the sentiment expressed in the disputed sentence because I believe that if an explanation was given for the scientific POV of astrology, then an explanation would need to be given for every other POV as well. And that would add considerable drag to an already lengthy opening.
If it's reverted or rewritten, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind the change, to see if there's a possibility for compromise.
Thank you.
pixiequix 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You cling to that single paragraph of Wikipedia policy as if it were your own personal dogma, and as though it were the only standard for a Wikipedia editor to follow. Why don't you go and edit a topic that you care passionately about, and not continue to obstruct the editing of topics you're passionately against?
My revision of that small paragraph was perfectly neutral and non-biased, and you know it. You changed it out of spite and to suit your own personal bigotry. It's obvious you've got no actual concern for the topic or those who might read about it.
pixiequix 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph is full of unverifed, unsourced statements that did not conform to WP:V. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We have been through this time and again: it is a pseudo-science, we have great sources for that, it is the majority view of relevant experts and nobody gets to decide what merits they are judged by (that would be NPOV). The overview/introduction should mention what astrology is - it does, even alongside the proponent's view, in a fair manner. And we are not out to write what is "tolerable" to anyone, we are out to write the truth and we use guidelines of eg. verifiability to do so. Lundse ( talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the point about how the majority of astrologers essentially define it, here is one relevant quote: “Astrology shows the cosmic source and background for the working of forces in any field of endeavor...it shows the basic language of cosmic energy.” David Frawley, The Astrology of the Seers. Passage Press, Salt Lake City, UT, 1990. I could dig up a ton of these quotes in my library, if absolutely necessary. Rumbird ( talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist has slapped me with a 3RR warning. You science types really band together to save the world from other points of view. No one listens to logic (see my above message). Is this all that Wikipedia has to offer in terms of developing a fair presentation? The biggest clique wins? I´m sorry, but I think the NPOV tag has to come back. Rumbird ( talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Historically, astrologers have defined astrology as a symbolic language, based either on portents or direct cosmic influences on human life[3][4][5]. Accordingly, they view it either as a science[6] or an art form[7]. Will this work. Rumbird ( talk) 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Below are seven quotes from respected but very different astrologers that reveal an implicit consensus among them as to what astrology is and is not. The difficulty with astrology is that most of its authors fall under the definition of "fringe". While it is true that some authors have developed quite a following, such as Charles E. O. Carter and Alan Leo in London, to my knowledge it has not had the result of creating a formal statement of consensus. The quotes by E. Parker and Margaret Hone below show also that astrologers have been fighting an uphill battle with regard to prejudices and attacks from the science communities and political establishment, literally pushing them undergound, which makes consensus harder to develop. However, through a perusal of many disparate texts, a common modern view emerges of astrologers from around the world, even if there are notable differences in emphasis, that astrology is indeed a language of symbols, to interpret the influences from the cosmos on human life. It is both a science and art, but as Margaret Hone explains, the nuances and complexity of astrology make it's propositions hard to prove in the most rigorous scientific fashion. Finally, some of the quotes also bring out the meta aspect of astrology, that it deals with the inner reality of the human experience, based on the spirit and its relation with God. This cardinal axiomatic difference between astrology and the " nihilist materialism" of science is perhaps the most glaring cause for the attacks by the "scientists" of the Age of Enlightenment on astrology. It is a fight between two radically different world views, or paradigms. Enjoy! Rumbird ( talk) 11:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote 1:
Quote 2:
Quote 3:
Quote 4:
Quote 5:
Quote 6:
Quote 7:
These are indeed fascinating insights. However, you said yourself that there really isn't a formal consensus on what astrology actually is, and this is my key concern. Overall I still believe it is a lot fairer to the diversity of astrological opinion to give the differing definitions, rather than settling on one view. Jefffire ( talk) 15:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The information is relevant in this section, with a NPOV it can stay. This section was depending too heavily on the work of Michel Gauquelin. Linking to the work of more researchers will only improve its value as a reference in this subject. To the guy that erased it because it doesn't have credibility: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Wikipedia is not about truth. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Tarnas' work satisfies this criteria, to the point of having his own Wikipedia article. And it's relevant to the subject discussed. For me, that's enough to have the link. As long as it's written in such a way that it doesn't endorses, nor denies the validity of his claims. Diego ( talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the research section, perhaps someone could make mention of the fact that Michel Gauquelin's research continues to this day? There's 50+ years worth of documented statistical research in the
Gauquelin archives. I'd make the addition myself, but I have no patience for the petty revert wars that erupt every time someone makes an edit which is at all supportive of astrology.
pixiequix ( talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have frequented this article for much of the nearly three years I have been on Wikipedia. In that time I have tried my best to improve this article, as the subject is one that I have a deep curiosity of and, at least, an adequate respect for. Yet astrology as a multi-thousand year old system, as an extremely multifaceted topic, as a group of traditions that has done more than its fair share of influencing culture and academia throughout history, seems to get only one concern here: does it work?
While the same arguments get endlessly rehashed and the same edit wars ensue over and over again concerning its validity, vital information about its history, development, transmission, etc. get ignored. One would think with all the endless fuss the text about its validity would at the very least accurately and faithfully portray the situation, yet that segment is pitiful as well. Instead of editors who genuinely want to improve the article, I see a constant trickle of pompous apostles of science who haven't a clue about astrology other than what popular scientific opinion informs them. But, you must be saying to yourself, this is a wiki! Anyone can come along and balance the over-represented point of view. Yes, that is the concept, but in practice it is not always so, for the representatives of other points of view have to be present in the first place. All constructive members except for a very few have all been run off by ignorant, rude editors simply out to push a point of view they have hardly begun to understand anyway, leaving the remainder to fill up another 13 pages worth of incessant quibbling and the article to stagnate in mediocrity.
I have made a plea before to stop putting so much undue focus on one topic, to quit the endless bickering and demeaning, to finally get some attention elsewhere, yet my request appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I look at important sections about this topic's history and practice and I see unverified claims. I see a constant onslaught of rabid members of the Church of Science out to belittle a topic they haven't a clue about. I see an article in a rather lackluster state, and few hopes of any editors to come along and help improve it.
I'm permanently removing this article from my watchlist. Those of you who I have butted heads with in the past may think as you wish of me, but it is the education and freedom of thought of the uninformed masses you are hurting. Samuel Grant 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The question of validity is a major part of this subject, and hence the section will always be a flash-point. Wikipedia's weighting guidelines are such that mainstream sources with a good scientific reputation will always receive greater preference that niche or disreputable sources, and this is the way things should be for us to build a reliable article. Jefffire 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
" Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, the number of people engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting in astrology is quite large and belief in astrology remains widespread in the general public."
For a list of Professional astrologers/ astrology associations: [ [7]] [ [8]] [ [9]] Rumbird 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
" Mainstream science has found no evidence to support astrology. Despite this, thousands of astrologers around the world are engaged in the writing, lecturing and consulting based on their knowledge and experience of astrology and belief in it remains widespread in the general public."
Nagarajaprasad ( talk) 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nagaraja Prasad:- Now, Vorpal blade, I believe you shouldn't have mixed God and Astrology.BELIEF IN GOD AND ASTROLOGY ARE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY. Let me explain this simple fact: 1. Question: What is God? Answer: In part, we understand God to be an all powerful, all pervading supreme spirit who controls our birth, death and whatever happens between birth and death, at the least. So one prays god to fulfill one’s wishes. The wish may be to get more wealth, more happiness, a sweet wife, a caring husband or good health. Of course the list is endless. But what is certain is when one who prays God; one also believes that God has the power to influence the events in one’s life. One therefore prays God to change the events to his/ her advantage and hopes God will heed to one’s prayers. 2. Question: What is Astrology? Answer: In short, Astrology predicts future events. One does this by careful study of influence of Cosmos on life on Earth (It is rather amusing that of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets, only a few cosmic elements affect the events in one’s life). Or one may choose Palmistry, and correlate the myriad lines on palm to prophesize. Whatever be the method, one can predict future only if the future events are frozen in time. If future is not frozen, and if one has a way to shape future events, then nobody can prophesize. For, nobody would know how events unfold. Take for example my death. An astrologer can predict my age at death only if my death is frozen in time. Say, my death is frozen in time at 75 years. Only then, can an astrologer say that I will die at 75. If I have a way to change 75, to 65 or 85, nobody can predict my death. Only when events are actualized would we be certain of what has happened.
One wants God to heed to one’s wishes and shape future events to his/ her advantage. I don’t want to die at 75! So one believes future events can be changed, and is not frozen in time. And again, one goes to an astrologer to know ones future. Now, the astrologer can’t tell your future. Not if you believe in God. That is plain logic.
Now, I hope all believers will give up on Astrology. And an agnostic would any way doubt both the Astrologer and God.
"Where there was hope of editors here to help within these segments, that was quickly extinguished once they saw what kind of convoluted mess trying to do anything with this article becomes on the count of overzealous science nuts often rude without provocation."
I couldn't agree more. It's a pathetic state of affairs.
I'm sorry to see you go Sam, but I totally understand.
pixiequix ( talk) 12:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So, if it isn't already clear to everyone involved, it appears that one of the astrologers who has recently contested one of the opening paragraphs on the page is engaging in creating sock puppets in order to 'win' the revert war and sidestep the 3RR rule. Since User:Rumbird was the guy who originally seems to have started the edit war on that paragraph, and he was already warned once recently for violating the 3RR rule, he is the prime suspect, although it seems that User:Budfin is getting in on it now as well, so he could also be the culprit. Whoever it is, I think that it is ridiculous and disgraceful. Actually it is more embarrassing than anything else, because I'm an astrologer as well, and this is the type of stuff that makes the rest of us look bad- or, worse I should say. The current sock puppets appear to be User:Ali the Munificent, User:Random-chess, and User:SciFiApostle. Their edit histories make this apparent. If anyone knows any high level admins could you please ask them to do an IP check and ban this guy? -- Chris Brennan ( talk) 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is simply to supply the full name of this person - and to avoid a mix-up with John Dewey. -- rpd ( talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The graphic illustrating the astrological symbols for the plants still lists Pluto as a planet. Does anyone have a more updated graphic illustrating the symbols sans Pluto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.203.130 ( talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive a poor newby, but I couldn't resist trying to get in on the action, even though I barely have a clue about your protocols. After reading the section on "Research" in the astrology article, I am dubious about the claim that Gauquelin's hypothesis about the "Mars Effect" has actually been "refuted". Is this in the new journalistic sense I've run across lately, where "refute" is used as a synonym for "disagree with"? Do the references cited actually refute Gauquelin's work? From what I know, reference #52 should not be included as support. Please see the article by Dennis Rawlins in Fate, (34, October, 1981). This whole effort by CSICOP was a fiasco, and a black eye to science. In fact, this failed attempt to rig the results against astrology deserve some mention in this article, since it shows that science is a human enterprise. Worse still was the attempt the organization made to cover up the initial fraud. I have not yet been able to find the other two references cited to support this "refutation". Any responses? Kevinl.8creamynougat ( talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am trying another way to post a comment on this page. Please bear with this poor newby. The claim in the "Research" section that Gauquelin's hypothesis of the "Mars effect" has been refuted seems quite dubious to me, given one of the source listed, with no further comment ["Since its original publication... which refute it...."]. I refer to reference note #52, the 1977 article in The Humanist. This paper has been thoroughly discredited as science, and so has the subsequent conspiracy to cover up the original errors and misguided claims. See the long article sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins in Fate (34, October, 1981). I have not yet had a chance to read the other two articles, but I now wonder if anyone else has either, or if it is enough that they attack astrology. Science is never served by bad science, no matter how seeming deserving its targets seem to be. Quite the contrary, when scientists misuse the status of science, they undermine the belief of the public, i.e., non-scientists.( Kevinl.8creamynougat ( talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to know the reason for the absence of biblical reference. If there was any at all discussions previously also. -- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. -- Nathanael Bar-Aur L. ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows for example the meaning of "nominative" and "genitive", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 ( talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This has gone back and forth a few times between several people, including me, so I thought this might be the best place to discuss it. I'm new, so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place.
The dispute is between the following two sentence versions in the article intro:
"Astrology is often defined as the study of the supposed influences of the cosmos on life on earth."
and
"Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth."
I -- and apparently some others further down in the edit history -- favor the latter, and still others favor the former, on the grounds that such influences have never been proved and that there is no consensus that they exist at all.
I do not dispute this (and apparently neither do my predecessors). Such influences have, indeed, never been proved to the general satisfaction of the scientific community. This doesn't matter, however, because this statement is a description of a definition, and is not an assertion affirming the existence of any underlying reality.
To illustrate what I mean, as I tried perhaps too briefly to do in my edit-comment: I believe the following to be an acceptable example of a neutral, objective statement:
"Theology is often defined as the study of God."
Of course it is. This is, objectively, a logically and factually true statement, because it describes a definition of theology. This statement makes no assertion at all about the actual existence of God (the object of the study).
Likewise, "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is a description of a definition, and is not logically or connotatively equivalent to implying that such influences actually exist; the sentence isn't about such influences at all, in fact, but only about defining "astrology."
That's the argument from one angle.
The argument from another angle is that with the addition of "...the supposed...", the statement is actually made false. Astrology in its own context is never defined as the study of "supposed" influences. In fact, one can't actually study "supposed influences." It's defined as the study of "influences." One can study something -- empirically or otherwise -- without knowing in advance whether or not it even exists: physicists do it all the time. Hence the definition doesn't imply the existence or nonexistence of such influences; it merely describes a process of study, and the subject to which that process is applied. Valravn ( talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there someone who can give a convincing reason why the Hermetism template should be on this astrology article? If no explanation is forthcoming, I may soon remove that template. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) ( talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a question: Suppose one day our civilization expands to encompass multiple star systems, or equally, that one day we encounter an alien civilization. The question then is, what validity could astrology have, since it inherently assumes the configuration of our own star system?
Suppose humans establish a colony on a planet orbiting another star. Does our astrology still apply to them, or do we need to devise some new astrology, based on the planets that exist in their star system? Does every star system have its own system of astrology? Is there some formula we can use to construct the astrological interpretation of an arbitrary star system, or are such interpretations purely arbitrary? Suppose we were to adopt such an interpretation -- what if we encountered an alien civilization which had devised a system of astrological interpretations which could not be made to conform to our generic model?
Let us suppose I am born in this star system. I therefore have a natal chart. The assumption being, that my continued presence in this star system, causes the positions of the planets at the time of my birth to have a continued influence. Now, suppose I then move, by means of interstellar travel, to another star system. Am I then governed by that star system's planets or by the planets of the original star system? Do I need to redraw a natal chart by the new star system, or do I keep my original natal chart?
More troubling for adherents of astrology -- since the theories of relativity deny the existence of simultaneity, I cannot necessarily identify times between distant locations, e.g. multiple star systems. So, if I was born at time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. Equally, if right now is time X in star system A, I cannot necessarily find a unique corresponding time Y in star system B, such that X and Y are simultaneous. The result is, that, it appears, astrological influences cannot pass between systems.
And, while I am on an interstellar spaceship, between the two systems -- how does astrology govern my life then?
In terms of the future evolution of our civilization, interstellar travel is probably a long way off -- and the question of when and/or if verifiable contact with extraterrestrial civilizations will occur is essentially unanswerable. But lunar or Martian colonies are probably much closer. If I am on a lunar or Martian colony, how does astrology effect my life? It would seem obvious that, if there is any validity to astrology at all, that Earth-bound astrology cannot apply while on the moon or Mars or in space. And yet, if it cannot apply, what should apply in its stead? When the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, or were in transit to or from it, what astrological influences applied to them? -- SJK ( talk) 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What false assumption? And I am not an astrologer, nor am, dwelling upon the surface of this planet, any more in space than you or most other people are. Yet, I suppose, sometimes in order to challenge others' beliefs, you must start from an assumption of accepting them. Reductio ad absurdum, as it were...
One further consideration -- among systems of divination, astrology alone seems to have problems with space travel. Consider e.g. numerology, or cartomancy (e.g. Tarot cards). Whatever different problems these systems may have, their applicability across different locations in the universe is not obviously an issue, unlike astrology. -- SJK ( talk) 11:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Was this correct, or does "them" refer to the astrologers themselves? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte reverted my edit citing WP:WTA. I proceeded to read that page (it has been years) and found how its undue weight given to negative uses of claim made it inaccurate. I rewrote the section, and have submitted that change to the WP:WTA talk page (and #IRC) for review. Note that Verbal also made a similar edit, which Cosmic Latte also reverted.- Ste vertigo 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
And this is an unnecessary flourish. While not explicitly false (yes, astrology's adherents do believe this), its presence is implying something, and to me it suggests that non-adherents might believe something other than what is being asserted in the article. I fail to see, however, what the alternative to that proposition, as exactly worded, might be. The wording that I am advocating is the following: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." Not even the most hard-core skeptic would deny that, according to this "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs," celestial knowledge aids in psycho-social understanding and interpretation. For the sake of comparison, if I say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," I don't think I'm saying anything too controversial. The fact that I, personally, do not subscribe to such an interpretation might motivate me to attribute it to an outgroup: to "them," "the other guy," or, if I'm feeling formal, "adherents." But if I follow through with this and say, "According to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, claim the adherents of such an interpretation, the universe was created in six 24-hour days," then at best I'm suggesting, not that there are alternative interpretations to the literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather that there are alternative understandings of what it means to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. So if we call astrology a system of beliefs, and then qualify that with a phrase like "according to adherents," we're suggesting (if we are indeed editing without bias toward alternatives to astrology as a whole) that there is an internal debate about what astrological beliefs entail. Put differently, saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs according to which X and Y are true" is enough to allow for the existence of those who do not share those beliefs; but saying that "astrology is a system of beliefs in which adherents believe X and Y" makes room for the possibility that astrology is a system of beliefs in which someone else believes Z and A. There is no discussion in the article about such an internal debate, in which someone actually contests the lead's attribution of a celestial-terrestrial link to the astrological "group of systems, traditions, and beliefs." So there's no need to define astrology in terms of its (e.g., conflicting) adherents or in terms of any other people. It is a concept, an abstraction, relative to which X and Y are true. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad were all being communicative and discussing it. I also appreciate Cosmic's willingness to listen to us, and abandoning his tactic of labelling any qualifying language as "unnecessary flourish." We're past the hard part. I agree that Nunh-huh's version is much better, and may be a good compromise:
But this version, while fulfilling 90% of the requirement for qualifying attribution, is not ideal for three specific reasons: 1) The word "hold" is not the clearest term, and other words would work better: "claims to", "maintains that," "asserts that," and "hold's that" are the ones that come to mind. Any others? (PS: "According to adherents" appears to be quite necessary). Among my concerns is how "hold" translates quite ambiguously, (we can test it at http://translate.google.com ) while "claim", "states" and "asserts" do not. Let's put that issue aside for now.
The second issue is 2) the usage of "can" may not be accurate, as astrologists may not be qualifying about astrology itself, their skills in astrology, and the results of a particular consultation. In otherwords, I'm asserting the correctness of the statement: 'astrology is a system of beliefs that [attributive qualifier] does [in fact] provide useful information about...' Is this not true about astrology, that astrologists assert its validity? Is this not true even when a particular astrologer may be qualify their practice and particular sessions with a disclaimer?
The third issue 3) deals with the object of the assertion: "[Astrology.. "can provide"] useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters..." A major aspect missing here is the precognitive dimension of astrology —astrologers claim to give "useful information" about not just "terrestrial matters" (eughk!) but 'extra-terrestrial' matters such as the future; future relationships, future job prospects, future directions in life, etc.
Anyway, enough for now. Those are my concerns. - Ste vertigo 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge. Astrological influences included the observation and long-term tracking of celestial objects. It was astrologers who provided the first systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were indistinguishable in ancient Babylonia and medieval Europe, but separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world."
This is not a critical article at all, I'm surprised there aren't premium horoscope phone number appearing under each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.212.196 ( talk) 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)