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. |
Astrology 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
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 Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
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 Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
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)
a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrologyare
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[ing] 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.
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 [astrology] seriously, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed
in contrastwith 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.
[n]ot an improvement.
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."
[s]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.
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)
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 philosophersinsofar 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add top astrology service provider list Aakanshadhoundiyal ( talk) 11:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Criticism section:
Scholars argue that the driving force behind astrology is the need to deal with life and the longing to be connected to the cosmic world. Beliefs in astrology can also result from the Barnum effect, where individuals may take a so-called “cancer trait” such as high emotionality and apply it to themselves despite being vague and applicable to a wide range of people. Another explanation, among many, is selective memory, where people count the hits and ignore the misses. When looking at typical cancer-sign traits, individuals will focus on all the ones they find applicable to them, ignoring those that are not. Critics of astrology frequently cite astrologers’ ability to explain away errors. When personality traits do not add up to an individual’s astrological sign, birth times suddenly become unreliable, or people do not know themselves well enough. One of the central claims in Western astrology is that astrological signs account for personality differences, such as Cancer signs as emotional beings or Scorpio signs being fiery. Despite these claims, there has been little empirical support. In one study, participants completed the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) and were grouped by their respective astrological signs. No statistically significant differences were found in personality traits across astrological signs. Theoretical foundations believe that various signs have different needs and wants, making signs compatible or incompatible with one another. A different study conducted in Sweden examined romantic compatibility, partner choices, and divorce rates among various astrological signs from 1968-2001. The results yielded no significant differences in astrological sign combinations between marriage partners or divorce rates among couples with varying degrees of compatibility. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest lower divorce rates among highly compatible couples. 142.116.207.128 ( talk) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The current second paragraph of the lead is oddly assertive about there being a single thing called astrology distinct from astronomy that was "throughout its history" a respectable pursuit. That is POV pushing and it is not supported by the actual body of this article. According to the current short description, astrology is "Divination based on the movements of the stars". There has been opposition to that throughout most of recorded history. Starting at least with Cicero. And then when the lead seems to use Shakespeare as support for Astrology's acceptance, it ignores that there are critical references to Astrology even there. But I digress. Let's see if we can't come up with something that is appropriately balanced! Here is what I have proposed:
Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for epistemic, political and religious reasons. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. [11]
There are no weasle words. Nor is there any Synth. This is merely a SUMMARY of most of the criticism that occurs IN THIS ARTICLE. Cheers. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
nonethelessis a weasel word ( WP:EDITORIAL). This gives undue weight to the "detractors, competitors, and skeptics" who were the minority, whereas the majority
considered [it] a scholarly tradition and [it] was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine-- which is what the lead here says. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
detractors, competitors, and skepticswere the majority but that astrology continued
nonetheless( WP:UNDUE.) That is textbook WP:SYNTH: your sources indicate that some people criticized astrology, but using it to imply that there was some sort of consensus -- there was not. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
<ref> </ref>
, perhaps in combination with the use of {{
harvnb}} templates.
WP:REFCLUTTER just really looks bad. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk
☉) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
is at variance with what has been demonstrated in natural science, namely, that the actions of the planets are all good, and that the existing things [down] here all draw their existence from their motion.The "natural science" here is of course Aristotelian physics as understood by Averroes, and so his objection boils down to astrology being at variance with Aristotelian doctrine. Criticisms based on perceived incompatibility with other sciences as understood at the time were common, such as e.g. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's criticism presented in the article under the header theological viewpoints, which is based on an argument derived from medieval astronomy (indeed it has nothing to do with theology or religion and should be moved to another section). Given the fact that what precisely constitutes 'science' in the medieval context is a bit of a thorny subject, such objections are probably best summarized as "doctrinal reasons".
Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for political, moral, religious, and doctrinal reasons.The only thing I'm not sure of is to what exactly
politicalrefers? Of course one of the most important uses of astrology historically was political, but the article does not mention much about that right now, and it's not immediately clear to me who among the detractors was politically motivated? I'm sure that there were many such detractors (who would of course have used other arguments but whose fundamental motivation was political in nature), and I'm not saying that the word should be taken out, rather that something seems to be missing in the article itself? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
empiricalreasons? They're also not among the most widespread but perhaps it would be useful to add them after
doctrinal. If the list is getting too long that way we could perhaps leave
politicalout. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
the twins argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physicsto be covered by "scientific" in a sentence beginning Throughout its history. But that is an empirical question we probably can't settle here, so I'm fine with avoiding that word. Unsure on "political". Srnec ( talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
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. |
Astrology 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
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 Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
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 Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
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)
a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrologyare
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[ing] 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.
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 [astrology] seriously, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed
in contrastwith 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.
[n]ot an improvement.
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."
[s]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.
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)
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 philosophersinsofar 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add top astrology service provider list Aakanshadhoundiyal ( talk) 11:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Criticism section:
Scholars argue that the driving force behind astrology is the need to deal with life and the longing to be connected to the cosmic world. Beliefs in astrology can also result from the Barnum effect, where individuals may take a so-called “cancer trait” such as high emotionality and apply it to themselves despite being vague and applicable to a wide range of people. Another explanation, among many, is selective memory, where people count the hits and ignore the misses. When looking at typical cancer-sign traits, individuals will focus on all the ones they find applicable to them, ignoring those that are not. Critics of astrology frequently cite astrologers’ ability to explain away errors. When personality traits do not add up to an individual’s astrological sign, birth times suddenly become unreliable, or people do not know themselves well enough. One of the central claims in Western astrology is that astrological signs account for personality differences, such as Cancer signs as emotional beings or Scorpio signs being fiery. Despite these claims, there has been little empirical support. In one study, participants completed the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) and were grouped by their respective astrological signs. No statistically significant differences were found in personality traits across astrological signs. Theoretical foundations believe that various signs have different needs and wants, making signs compatible or incompatible with one another. A different study conducted in Sweden examined romantic compatibility, partner choices, and divorce rates among various astrological signs from 1968-2001. The results yielded no significant differences in astrological sign combinations between marriage partners or divorce rates among couples with varying degrees of compatibility. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest lower divorce rates among highly compatible couples. 142.116.207.128 ( talk) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The current second paragraph of the lead is oddly assertive about there being a single thing called astrology distinct from astronomy that was "throughout its history" a respectable pursuit. That is POV pushing and it is not supported by the actual body of this article. According to the current short description, astrology is "Divination based on the movements of the stars". There has been opposition to that throughout most of recorded history. Starting at least with Cicero. And then when the lead seems to use Shakespeare as support for Astrology's acceptance, it ignores that there are critical references to Astrology even there. But I digress. Let's see if we can't come up with something that is appropriately balanced! Here is what I have proposed:
Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for epistemic, political and religious reasons. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. [11]
There are no weasle words. Nor is there any Synth. This is merely a SUMMARY of most of the criticism that occurs IN THIS ARTICLE. Cheers. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
nonethelessis a weasel word ( WP:EDITORIAL). This gives undue weight to the "detractors, competitors, and skeptics" who were the minority, whereas the majority
considered [it] a scholarly tradition and [it] was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine-- which is what the lead here says. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
detractors, competitors, and skepticswere the majority but that astrology continued
nonetheless( WP:UNDUE.) That is textbook WP:SYNTH: your sources indicate that some people criticized astrology, but using it to imply that there was some sort of consensus -- there was not. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
<ref> </ref>
, perhaps in combination with the use of {{
harvnb}} templates.
WP:REFCLUTTER just really looks bad. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk
☉) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
is at variance with what has been demonstrated in natural science, namely, that the actions of the planets are all good, and that the existing things [down] here all draw their existence from their motion.The "natural science" here is of course Aristotelian physics as understood by Averroes, and so his objection boils down to astrology being at variance with Aristotelian doctrine. Criticisms based on perceived incompatibility with other sciences as understood at the time were common, such as e.g. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's criticism presented in the article under the header theological viewpoints, which is based on an argument derived from medieval astronomy (indeed it has nothing to do with theology or religion and should be moved to another section). Given the fact that what precisely constitutes 'science' in the medieval context is a bit of a thorny subject, such objections are probably best summarized as "doctrinal reasons".
Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for political, moral, religious, and doctrinal reasons.The only thing I'm not sure of is to what exactly
politicalrefers? Of course one of the most important uses of astrology historically was political, but the article does not mention much about that right now, and it's not immediately clear to me who among the detractors was politically motivated? I'm sure that there were many such detractors (who would of course have used other arguments but whose fundamental motivation was political in nature), and I'm not saying that the word should be taken out, rather that something seems to be missing in the article itself? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
empiricalreasons? They're also not among the most widespread but perhaps it would be useful to add them after
doctrinal. If the list is getting too long that way we could perhaps leave
politicalout. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
the twins argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physicsto be covered by "scientific" in a sentence beginning Throughout its history. But that is an empirical question we probably can't settle here, so I'm fine with avoiding that word. Unsure on "political". Srnec ( talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)