# Talk:Astrology and science

I tried, with Wikidata, to link "Astrology and science" to its French counterpart étude statistique de l'astrologie (beware: the first vowel is accentuated) but failed (probably because the vowel is accentuated). If somebody can help, thanks. 89.90.40.202 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I had the same issue, but I tried a non-accented article, same issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done They have all been merged into d:Q3592582. The reason for your problem is that both existed as separate items, and each sitelink can only be used on one item.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For a Good Article, I would expect in the introduction more references to the "many" (it is said so) astrologers who claim or have claimed that astrology is scientific (the French interwiki may help, with references to Krafft or Choisnard). This is WHY there is a matter "Astrology and Science". I particularly appreciated the amplification of viewpoints in the conclusion with the reference to Carl Gustav Jung. The latter believed in astrology as he believed in alchemy: as a matter of faith (I appreciated the statement: "Synchronicity is not falsifiable" in the conclusion), not necessarily as a science. All astrologers are not so intolerant as to impose their beliefs (it is rightly said in the introduction that astrology is a system of beliefs) on others. Otherwise, I find this a very well constructed article, very clear. I am not too far from voting for a Good Article. Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there is no use of the word many in the introduction. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that I highlight that many astrologers claim astrology is scientific? It's a good point, and I'll have a look at expanding on that. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It is in fact said (a bit late) in the conclusion: "Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific". In the French article, astrology is in the categories "superstition" (I understand: there is a belief in supernatural causes, such as with the Babylonian priests), "medieval belief" (I understand: it was a religion before; it is now only a belief) and pseudo-science (astrology became a mixture of rational and irrational thoughts with the Greeks and their "rational spirit"). In my humble opinion, the astrologers who say astrology is a science do not know the history of their discipline. Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I read in the article Pseudoscience that an indication is the "failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims" and that "Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia". If it can help... Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Another good point. I'll have a read up on Terence Hines, and the general point about failing to progress etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
RE: Astrology has changed very little.
My experience is that it's useless to lecture Wiki, but I will make some notes in passing.
Astrology is dependent upon latitude as it must reduce three dimensions into two, plus account for time.  As a consequence, before there were Arabic numbers (1202 in Europe), astrology had to make do with various crude hash mark systems, Roman numbers being the best of the lot.  Consequently it was impossible to set up accurate house systems in Europe before there was a number system that could manage it.  Yes you can do spherical trig in Romans, but it ain't easy and most people won't.  (Compare to traditional Chinese numbering if you want to know why they clung to the abacus centuries after Europe had abandoned it.)
Contrast to India, which is mainly equatorial.  In India, all house division systems result in more or less equal houses.  Hence the Hindu reliance upon houses over signs, which they largely ignore.  They generally smear houses into signs anyway.  Note that it was India that developed "Arabic" numbers, around 300 AD.
But the equal house dodge won't work further north.  Lack of a number system kept astrology out of northern Europe until medieval times.  Campanus (13th century) was the first to use Arabic numbers to generate actual house cusps, only a few decades after Arabic numbers were introduced. He was followed by the 15th century Regiomontanus and his "rational" house system.  Both of these were based on the division of space.
But the real prize was division by time.  The Greeks had ascensional times, which was cleverly exploited by Vettius Valens (2nd century AD).  Which was based on the work of Hipparchus (2nd century BC), but its astrological use was fragmentary as none of the various Helenistic number systems were powerful enough to make it a comprehensive system.  Ascensional times are, by the way, the origin of Primary Directions.
It was the 17th century Placidus de Titis who finally worked out the ancient rising time system and gave us Placidus houses.  It simply took that long to master the Arabic number system.  Someone could do a useful survey on how Arabic numbers changed the world.
Meanwhile, for centuries most astrologers practiced judicial astrology.  Which is to say, mundane.  The astrology of the king and his kingdom.  Will there be war, or peace.  Weather astrology was a useful sideline - and one that ought to be on this page, by the way.  For common people, who rarely knew the exact day of their birth, horary astrology.  As in, is my wife cheating on me?  You think astrology has no risks?  You tell a man his wife is not cheating and then get caught wrong.
Horary astrology, which has its origins in Katarche came to be a sophisticated blend of house, sign and planet, to produce entirely imaginary results, of course.  The 17th century Jean-Baptiste_Morin_(mathematician)  who did not like horary at all (he thought it a trick of infidel Muslims) introduced horary techniques into natal chart reading.  It's clever of Wiki to call him a mathematician, by the way.  He wrote one of the greatest of all astrology texts, the Latin Astrologia Gallica, but as the world was shifting from Latin into local vernacular and as England was becoming the center of the astrological world, his masterpiece lay largely ignored until the middle of the 20th century.  It has only been in the last 20 years that significant portions of his text has been translated into English, never mind any other modern language.
Natal astrology did not become dominant until the 20th century and Alan Leo.  Horary had been the standard for at least 1000 years, ever since the Arabs perfected it.  Once natal astrology was introduced, horary faded, until it was reintroduced by Derek Appleby in the late 1970's, assisted by Olivia Barclay.  I give names but only when they're deceased.  Wiki editors have a bad habit of attacking people on the various talk pages.  Few of us are in the loop and are unaware of what goes on behind the scenes.
Using Morin's techniques - which simply exploit what has always been available - we can now read charts with astounding precision.  Unlike anything in any of the scientific experiments.  But, speaking on behalf of astrologers, we are still as lousy at forecasting as we've ever been.  I am surprised we do as well with forecasting as we have, given that we must first understand the person and then guess at his free will.  I can tell you that in reading Valens carefully, the Greeks were reviving astrology.  Not inventing it.
If you want proof of astrology, look no further than the weather.  The premise is simple.  If astrological energies are pervasive and if they interpenetrate the planet, then the environment will be entirely shaped by astrological factors, strictly applied.  No free will.  No natal charts.  No excuses.  Straight cause and effect.  Astrologers in fact commonly predict the weather months and years in advance.  And have, for at least ten centuries.  What do you think the old farmers at the Old Farmer's Almanac have been up to for the last 222 years?  Yes, if you ask them, they will deny.  You think they want this hostility directed at them?  The best astrologers hide.
By contrast, consensus-based "enlightened" science goes from fad to fad.  Pop music has more staying power.  Go read old science magazines until you figure it out.  Do we really know more now than a century ago, or ten years ago?  Most everything we now hold dear in science will be discredited in our own lifetimes.  That's not progress, it's guesswork.  How many science books ever get a second printing?  Libraries commonly throw old science books away.  The reason public libraries fail to stock astrology books was given to me by a librarian many years ago:  They're invariably stolen.  In 1910 Llewellyn George published his A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator.  It has 813 pages.  By 1973 it had gone through 35 printings, all in hardcover.  George himself died in 1954.  The book was finally retired around thirty years ago, in part as the original plates were entirely worn out.
Astrology has been in continual development for 2000 years.  Aristotelian science was 1800 years old before the enlightened French (who were entirely ignorant, by their own admission) threw him away in 1650.  Your science is a newcomer.  It's Aristotle you're fighting.  Philippe Ginouillac should take the time to study the subject before he repeats common mistakes.  The ignorance of astrologers is only exceeded by the ignorance of its detractors.  Wiki is starting to cover its ignorance with censorship and exclusion.  Anyone with a brain knows where that will end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.151.239 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Tropical or Sidereal?
The article and discussion appear to be lacking. I was wondering if anyone had analyzed sidereal astrology, but the differences between sidereal and tropical astrology weren't even touched. From what I have read here, it appears that the analyses were of tropical astrology, and the reviewers didn't know the difference, but that is uncertain. 
PLewicke (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement: While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific is quite bizarre, as can be seen by replacing in it the stars by the Sun, since it would imply that one cannot study scientifically the influence of the Sun on human behaviour, which one clearly can do (e.g. studying correlations between the clothes that people wear and the position of the Sun). Did Kuhn really mean what is attributed to him? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The article fails to present the arguments proposed by Paul Feyerabend. Here are my sources:
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=5VewAkDw8h0C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=feyerabend,+Statement+of+186+Leading+Scientists%E2%80%9D+against+astrology+(1975)&source=bl&ots=xcD20N0sof&sig=sBsg5hjgg56FXVpwTOm3LBpgHT8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MPOqUZ6AAsW-rgfmkIG4Bg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=feyerabend%2C%20Statement%20of%20186%20Leading%20Scientists%E2%80%9D%20against%20astrology%20(1975)&f=false
The article also fails to provide a reliable, external reference of a scientific proof that scientific proofs are the only real ones as per WP:SOURCE policy.
Mauricelavenant (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your second statement is purely nonsensical. On the first paragraph, Feyerbend is a primary source for Feyerbend, but I will look for secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
feyerabend is a secondary source interpreting the many, many materials cited in his text.  surely one could say "noted philosopher of science paul feyerabend has criticized the casual dismissal of astrology as a pseudoscience, arguing" blah, blah, blah.  or something.  also i think it would not be difficult to read mauricelavenant's comment about "scientific proofs" as suggesting that reductive materialism may have its limits.  "purely nonsensical" is unkind.Zach bender (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of mention in the article about how astrology is moribund; not challenging its own doctrines or changing much in 2000 years, etc. Yet, there is no mention of any important new approaches, such as one offered by Richard Tarnas in "Cosmos and Psyche" which moves away from the idea of stars and planets 'compelling' events, and more toward a holistic view that cycles of events on earth mirror cycles on planetary scales. Tarnas certainly has credibility as a historian of ideas, having written the bestselling "The Passion of the Western Mind". Also, he is an example of trying an empirical (instead of ad hoc) approach in certain respects; he does dissect the astrological ideas of the planet Uranus, ultimately rejecting any connection to the archetypal god of that name, seeing in this planet's cycles more the archetype of Prometheus. In that sense, he is at least attempting to see from an empirical standpoint, (based on events associated with that planet's cycles) how this 'new' planet might be interpreted in an astrological framework. It just seems that in general, there should be some short mention in the article of work such as his, that attempts to move astrology away from the clearly unverifiable and vague claims of the past, toward an exploration of what, if any, evidence there is for the resonance of planetary cycles with larger scale events on planet earth. I don't know enough about the subject to cite any other authors' work, but at least this would be a start.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.126.131 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 

This mirroring idea has been in astrology for several thousand years (i.e concepts such as Macrocosm and microcosm and then there is synchronicity from jung which appears to be roughly the same thing again). Like all the pseudoscientists, he does not use experiment to determine the accuracy of his work. I see no difference between him and other astrologers engaged in "research". IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand that Tarnas does not do experiments, but neither do many theoretical physicists, yet they are still doing 'science'. However, I'm not trying to say Tarnas is scientific in the strict sense. What I stressed was that his work was empirically based. I suppose an 'experiment' based on his research would be to predict the general outlines of the next major aspect between two of the outer planets he studied: if the same types of events occur during that time, it would be corroborative evidence, and if they did not, it would falsify his theory. But again, it's not the experimental aspect that prompted my original post. Tarnas is trying a new approach, and I thought it should be mentioned. He also did extensive research on the Zodiac signs, and found NO correlations with events on earth, which is another facet of his work that bears mentioning as it relates to this topic. At least he will admit contrary evidence, rather than ignore it, as is the norm for astrologers. It's true that 'as above, so below' is an old doctrine, but this is not exactly what Tarnas is doing, and such a doctrine absent any empirical evidence is simply a group of words. It just seems to me that the article is not being fair if it claims that astrology is just the same old rigmarole, without any mention of recent attempts to make it more empirical. Gauquelin is mentioned and more or less dismissed. One could just as well mention Tarnas, at least with a link to his article, and the one on his book Cosmos and Psyche. But perhaps that is better placed in the main astrology article, rather than one focusing on the science, or lack of it, in astrology. I believe astrology is a pseudoscience as it has been practiced for centuries, but I also believe that any possibility for basing it on empirical evidence lies in the direction Tarnas has pointed to.99.9.126.131 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your above analysis. Things are being looked at in reverse it seems. To establish that some theory should exist you first need to establish that there is an effect and that <insert mechanism> is the most likely explanation. Otherwise there is nothing to explain. All astrology lacks empirical evidence. Gauquelin looked at many aspects of astrology with no luck and got success in one area which is minor (but treated as evidence for astrology by astrologers despite the mostly negative results). Some believe that the data set was affected by the reporting mechanism (parents reporting birth times which was common before the 1950s), and some note that follow up studies published in reliable sources found no such link.
For policy reasons. See WP:OR, and WP:RS, we don't mention things which the reliable secondary sources have not drawn attention to. I have seen no source in this topic area, astrology and science, which refers to Tarnas or says that he offers something new. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, if the policy requires secondary sources and these are lacking, then the material will not be added. Although such sources may exist, since I'm not providing them I cannot insist on an edit. But i disagree that "all astrology lacks empirical evidence". This statement is vacuous without being conditioned further. And as the article states "Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict." This makes for an amusing 'falsifying' of a theory that is never clearly defined by those who are debunking it. Anyway, as I said above, perhaps a mention of Tarnas is more appropriate to the main astrology section rather than this one dedicated to its relationship to science. If his work ends up being important enough to redefine astrology n the future, there may be more of a 'consensus' among astrologers as to what their theory really is, which would make it easier to falsify or vindicate their specific claims, if such claims ever rise to the level of being considered 'scientific'. Thanks for the dialogue on this subject!99.9.126.131 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
A small note on "Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict", makes the job of the astrologer looking for empirical evidence more difficult. It does not make it more difficult to state the evidence currently does not exist. Also the article already notes, "where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified", that is where concrete predictions can be gotten out of an astrologer they only work to chance expectation. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the study by Shawn Carlson I found that his was really a bogus study dressed up to look like science. First of all most of the astrologers backed out of the study and the 28 who participated in the study were not named our tested to see if they even were astrologers. Then the astrologers were asked to compare horoscopes of people who were not named and the veracity of the data for the horoscopes was not examined. We are asked to take it on faith that the participants were indeed astrologers with a extensive knowledge of the art. This is like asking random people who may or may not have taken a college course in psychology to match psychological tests with actual people. There is no confirmed data anywhere in the study, just some basic statistics that show that the people who claimed to be astrologers, 28 in total, were not able to match characteristics that are not really astrological with the charts of people who's birth data is very suspect. It is just a randomstudy of random people that Shawn Carlson claimed were astrologers because they may have been subscribers to the NCGR. No testing was done of the so called astrologers to even see if they knew how to interpret the data in front of them. They most likely were not experts in the field. No certification data of the participants is shown. This would be like asking grade nine students to answer advanced questions in physics or astronomy.
Brian Johnston
http:thecanadianinstituteforappliedastronomy.yolasite.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.52.59 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC) 

Brian, Carlson used qualified astrologers and they successfully matched charts at a significant rate. Carlson made mistakes in his calculations. You can check his data, which was published in his article, but you must exactly follow his hypothesis. I've been trying to reach you for years. I like your earthquakes study and I have some suggestions for you. Please contact me through my web site. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Two astrologers making completely contradictory declarations about a paper so as to try and dismiss it. What is that an indication of do you think? Incidentally, a basic reading of the article would show that the NCGR recommended the astrologers used. All charts used were created by both the president and secretary of the NCGR San Francisco chapter. I suggest people look at our sourcing requirements WP:RS and relevant content policies WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ken I have talked to some of the astrologers and they were not qualified to the extent I consider to be enough  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC) 

nonetheless, what the carlson study shows is that a handful of individual astrologers were unable reliably to match natal charts with a personality profile, which might itself be subject to question.  it is one thing to describe the carlson study (as accurately and neutrally as possible).  it is another to say flatly "where astrology has made falsifiable predictions," etc.  as though "astrology" were an agent.  also zarka is a nearly worthless source here and in the earlier paragraph, as his paper merely recites these conclusions in the course of a larger polemic.Zach bender (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
On wikipedia, repeating the conclusions in the course of his work is exactly what we expect. See WP:SECONDARY, Second Quantization (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In the lead it states "It has also been suggested, by Geoffrey Dean, that the reporting of birth times by parents (before the 1950s) may have caused the apparent effect." and under the Mars effect,  "Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin."   This misreports Dean's views as he has stressed that social effects do not explain planetary effects unless it can be shown that the effects disappear when such artifacts are controlled.  Dean wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer 26(3) May/June 2002 p.37 "the existence of social effects do not deny the existence ... of genuine planetary effects." This point needs to be clarified. Kooky2 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement, "skeptic Michael Shermer, in a Double Blind experiment of astrologer Geoffrey Armstrong found that Armstrong's prediction of character traits based on natal horoscopes were accurate at a rate significantly higher than would be expected by guesswork alone" only cites a Youtube video posted by Jeffrey Armstrong. First: YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Second: the caption,"Michael Shermer debunked by Astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong" presents a skewed version of the events. Third: the readings given were somewhat general and the methodology for calculating percentage accuracy not described, worthy of pseudo-science but not science. I suggest this conclusion be deleted. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's one test, probably not double blind (at least nothing says it is, so the experimenters could have unconsciously given hints) and done within the constraints of shooting a TV show. It would be considered statistically significant on its own (p=0.03 if we assume the hypothesis was the switched cases would have the worst match) but not if if considered among the number of failed tests of astrology. I would either take it out of note that this is a single unreproduced test performed on a TV show that's not double blind. Bennetto (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The material in question was added earlier this week by Horsechestnut, and it is inconsistent with the strong argument previously at the end of the lead, which should remain intact with the status of this article as a Natural Sciences Good Article. I reverted to the last edit by Nederlandse Leeuw. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely. The sourcing is really terrible for this purported claim. Firstly, a video with 3 people under unknown conditions for a tv audience which has been subsequently edited to choose the most favourable part (presumably) and that's in comparison to the article which generally uses higher quality academic sources. If they are editing based on watching a TV show, they are doing it wrong. Secondly, Shermer does this sort of thing very often, 77% correct is going to happen  sometimes due to random chanc. Considering that a "wrong" match was ~30% that's hardly convincing that it wasn't a statistical fluke. If it was an actual study, and not a TV show with deadlines, he would have been tested again to see if it was a statistical fluke. In fact [1], apparently Shermer says as much. They were planning to do another (better) test but ran out of time. Also, based on date of birth alone one can make guesses about personality etc at a rate greater than chance anyway (see Astrology_and_science#Dean_and_Kelly).
Anyway, the claim about seasons is a common line people pull out. Astrological predictions aren't seasonally based, they do not line up with the seasons It's WP:OR anyway. Second Quantization (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a small addition to the "Lack of Mechanism" section to clarify a point that has always been a pet peeve of mine, both in terms of some skeptics overstating their case and in terms of defenders of astrology misrepresenting theirs.  I do think it's important to note that certain observations made by astrologers (with regards to natal astrology) can in fact be perfectly valid and scientifically testable as such — but that the astrological explanation itself can nonetheless remain complete bunk.  There most likely are correlations between a person's astrological chart and some features of their personality, and astrologers could exploit these correlations to improve the accuracy of their readings, but these correlations have absolutely nothing to do with the traditional notions of astrology.  --Khgtcv (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"There most likely are correlation" There aren't. Don't make edits based on your gut feelings. No part of astrology helps in making predictions for seasonal biology and in fact there is not even any uniform predictions amongst astrologers (see the article). "astrologers could exploit these correlations to improve the accuracy of their readings" That would involve abandoning all of their system. Since astrology does not align with the seasons and has shifted with the precession of the equinoxes this argument is also utterly invalid. Do not add original research, particularly when its wrong. Second Quantization (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)