# Talk:Astrology

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

Here on page 220 apparently we get 1679 as the date of a "clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy" (quote from Astrology and science, not the reference) Hoskin, Michael, ed. (2003). The Cambridge concise history of astronomy (Printing 2003. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521572910. I'm pretty sure 1679 is in the 17th century, no? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The source only mentions a book dedicated to astronomy that eschews astrology. It is certainly not a "clear rejection" of astrology, at least as far as the source describes it. Even if it did reject astrology outright, that doesn't mean the academy at large rejected astrology.
It took months of arguing to change the lead and its incredibly sneaky to wait until all that dies down for months to start editing it like no one would notice. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, I want people to notice. I think we need to discuss this deeply held desire by some editors to, despite a high percentage of the RS that are currently in the article and more to come from me, promote a single POV from a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology. I actually think there is value to that position and that it belongs in the article, but it currently is overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. It gets a little complicated, however, whether or not we are talking about Western astrology. And the definition of pseudoscience is also tricky. And then there is the issue of distinguishing astronomy from astrology. But certainly as soon as you can say, "there was astrology and there was astronomy", you are firmly in the pseudoscientific zone. Saying this happened in the 17th century is quite modest, given that it actually happened as far back as the 1st Century when people like Cicero were plainly stating that astrology was in opposition to reason. Cicero wasn't saying "ignore the heavens" He was saying "astrology is bunk". And lastly, I haven't re-read the most recent RFC's, but I can tell you right now that they were not as broad as to say "is the lead perfect and should no changes be made to the body?" New RS requires a new discussion. So if that's what you consider "incredibly sneaky" lock me up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It is completely ahistorical to claim that astrology has been opposed to natural philosophy for its entire existence. Even Thaggard et al admits this.
P.S. If you didn't know, Cicero was an academic skeptic. As with all schools of ancient skepticism, they denied knowledge was possible altogether. Cicero wasn't arguing for astronomy against astrology. He was opposed to the idea that natural sciences -- including astrology in the first-century -- could lead to knowledge at all. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm now home and can make a more substantial response to this. You state that a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology are overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. Firstly, there is no such group of historians who are overwhelming the consensus, whatever that means. There is a single -- small -- section dedicated to contextualizing astrology within a broader view of the history of science. The Reception in the social sciences subsection is preceded by three subsections (over 1,500 words) regarding the scientific validity of astrology as practiced today. The lede introduces pseudoscience in the tenth word. And even then, historians of science are experts. There is no overwhelm[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.
You mention the Society of Astrologers. You also seem to know that it was intended to defend astrology against religious criticism, not scientific criticism. The Royal Society initially overlapped with the Society of Astrologers in a significant degree, so while the latter failed, the former wasn't not taking [astrology] seriously, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed in contrast with the Royal Society. It is also doubtful you read the source you linked -- Pfeffer doesn't mention "pseudoscience" anywhere in her paper. In fact, the word pseudoscience was not coined until the late 18th century.
To concur with User:AndytheGrump, your edits are [n]ot an improvement.
Man, I love Template:Talk quote inline so much... MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You think there is a consensus amongst historians of science? Do you have sources for that? The two sources in the lead supporting the 18th century as the point of demarcation are not historians of science. One source is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and the other is a defense of "esotericism" by a "professor of the History of Hermetic Philosophy"!!!! Maybe you have better sources you could put in? Yes your Paul Thagard quotation is good, but he's obviously making a provocative polemic. And he doesn't support the 18th century. Thagard's position may be getting more of a foothold, but it's hardly a done deal. It's not a settled consensus, and so for us, as editors, decide Thagard's take in the correct one is not NPOV. We need to make it clear that throughout its history Astrology has had its critics. And as I've said giving the contextualizers a voice is also good. But right now the scale is tipped the wrong way. Per WP:FRINGE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is Massimo Pigliucci who is as well if not better credentialed than Thagard, from his substack: "“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.” That is completely correct, and as we have seen it is a principle that goes back at least to Hume and Laplace, though Cicero argues in a similar way in De Divinatione, where he criticizes the Stoics for believing in the pseudoscience of divination (he didn’t use that term, but that’s clearly what he meant)." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Pigliucci's self-published Substack blog where he puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Let's start with Thagard:
Thagard, Paul R. (1978). "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience". PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1978 (1). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 223–234. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639. ISSN 0270-8647.'
Barton, Tamsyn (1994). Ancient Astrology. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-11029-7.
Beck, Roger (2007). A brief history of ancient astrology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 978-0-470-77377-2. OCLC 214281257.
Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2012-01-19). Esotericism and the Academy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19621-5.
Rochberg, Francesca (2018-07-10), Astral Sciences of Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.62
Taub, Liba (1997). "The Rehabilitation of Wretched Subjects". Early Science and Medicine. 2 (1). Brill: 74–87. doi:10.1163/157338297x00023. ISSN 1383-7427.
Hankinson, R.J. (1988). "Stoicism, Science and Divination". Apeiron. 21 (2). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:10.1515/apeiron.1988.21.2.123. ISSN 2156-7093.
There are others, but these are the main ones referenced in the page.
Anyway, just because you put the [history of] esotericism in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a real field of study. Hanegraaff's book is published by Cambridge University Press and isn't a defense of esotericism at all. Plus, you seem to imply he's a quack of some sort, and not a professor at the University of Amsterdam specializing in the history of astrology and such...in other words, exactly the kind of expert one should reference -- if anyone knows the relationship between early modern science and astrology, it's Hanegraaff. Plus, the consensus among editors is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for many topics in religious studies.
There is already discussion about ancient and pre-18th century criticism of astrology on the page. Not an improvement. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so we have two questions on the table. 1) was Astrology a pseudoscience before the 18th century? 2) was astrology criticized throughout its history prior to that?
As I said, the sources listed in the lead do not seem to support the text written there (18th century). Can you find support from your better sources? You've provided a nice list, however...
Thagard, who is pushing the historical relativistic point the hardest is a philosopher, but I'll accept him as relevant, and place against him Pigliucci who disagrees with him.
We are not allowed to decide which of them is correct nor give undue balance to one of their opinions. Especially since Thagard seems to have a spicy new take on it. He might be right to scold the stuffy old historians and their presentism, however, we don't just jump on any bandwagon that rolls by. Right now the longest paragraph in the lead pushes Thagard's position.
Now looking at your other sources. Do you have the books on hand? Can you provide author bios?
Tamsyn Barton, I can find nothing about then. Do you know what their credentials are?
As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.
But the following look legit to me:
Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.
Liba Taub also looks legit to me.
Hankinson is good too.
As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:

"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization." DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've already mentioned that Pigliucci's self-published blog (in which he places words in Cicero's mouth) is not an improvement or "on equal footing" with Thagard's paper, which is an academic publication. The former is only relevant for Pigliucci's own views. In any case, there are not two questions on the table. There is only one question: do relevant, reliable sources support a 17th century date for the ascendance of astrology as a pseudoscience? The answer is a resounding "no."
Tamsyn Barton is an anthropologist specializing in the history of astrology, an alumnus of Oxford University and SOAS University of London, with a PhD from Cambridge University. Hanegraaff specializes in the history of astrology and dismissing his research is inane.
Lastly the only thing that matters with the Pfeffer source is that isn't relevant, it doesn't mention pseudoscience at all.
Feel free to check the sources. But if you do not have any sources that explicitly support a date in the 17th century for the recognition of astrology as a pseudoscience (which is borderline impossible, since the word didn't even exist in the 17th century) then refrain from editing the page to suggest such. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
As to Pigliucci's Notability you can't have a gripe, so under both WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PARITY, his "blog" is the professional opinion of a SECONDARY expert. And what he is saying there is completely in keeping with his published work and his relevant expertise. But don't worry, I have more sources coming. In the meantime...
Here is a Wikipedia essay that you might find useful. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy. It's just an essay so doesn't carry the weight of Policy or Guideline, but still some food for thought, namely:
"Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway.
...
Being from a "major" (says who?) publisher is not proof that a source is reliable; it's just an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books – because at least one professional editor acted as a filter, and because other reliable sources cite material from this publisher on a regular basis."
Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:ABOUTSELF, [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.
WP:PARITY isn't really applicable, unless you're implying that Paul Thagard is a fringe source (he isn't.) As per your own quotation, academic publication is an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books. In this case, the academic sources given absolutely are more reliable than a single, off-hand parenthetical self-published by Pigliucci. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yay, we agree! We can indeed follow policy and say, per ABOUTSELF that Pigliucci an expert in pseudoscience, philosophy and science, a native speaker of Italian and a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers in particular, says that Cicero considered Astrology to be a pseudoscience. Would you like to put that in or should I? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
As I originally stated, a single parenthetical is not really notable here. It should not imply that such a view is comparable to the scholarly consensus -- which is that astrology was only recognized as a pseudoscience in the 18th century -- which is clearly what you're trying to do. As far as I know, Pigliucci is only a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers insofar as he's associated with modern Stoicism, anyway. He's not really a notable source for elucidating what Cicero thought about astrology, especially apparent since he puts the word pseudoscience in his mouth despite the fact that such a concept would be completely foreign to a first-century BCE academic skeptic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link to whichever of the many many non-indexed and often-paywalled posts in "Pigliucci's substack blog" that you all are referring to or quoting? I checked the history and no such thing has been posted; you both seem to know exactly what is being discussed, but there's no way anyone else can follow. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Mme Dolya is referencing this substack post (which is not an improvement on Thagard.) MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The post is paywalled, but you say it's consistent with his published work. The topic in question seems to be Pigliucci talking about Cicero criticizing astrology. Any references to that, that normal people can access from say a university or public library? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know nor particularly care if it's consistent with his published work. I don't think it's an appropriate source and even if he did say that Ciceroc had a conception of pseudoscience in antiquity, I wouldn't buy it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is Fernandez-Beanato making the case that Cicero is actually talking about pseudo science. "Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criterian"
Here is Pigliucci building on this. Sorry this is paywalled. Maybe I can get you a pdf if you are interested.
Pseudoscience: An Ancient Problem DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the arbcom decision that gives astrology as an example of pseudoscience, and wp's rules and guidelines that require us to clearly describe it as such early in the lead, without waffling or qualification.

The long and frankly exhausting arguments by a couple of people who nominally declare enthusiasm on the question of "who decided this when?" are not convincing, and don't meet the bar to break this policy. It would make the article worse.
To those who have been advocating for weakening the clear description as PS, maybe your thesis on "it wasn't PS until 18xx" can go briefly somewhere in the history section if you must, but keep it out of the lead. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There are no rules or guidelines which require us to mark something without qualification -- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology became a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an encyclopedic view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)
Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.) wound theology◈ 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Its still wrong in my opinion because astrology never claimed to be a modern science nor do any other divinatory practices. 1.132.25.24 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion is irrelevant. Only what is published in [WP:RS]] counts on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the necropost, Hob. wound theology◈ 08:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Did you know that ... Cicero himself was an augur, a member of the college of officials who oversaw augury (Wynne 2019 p. 183)?It's a bit tricky to use someone like Massimo Pigliucci, who is not an expert on Cicero and published this in a non-academic magazine like Skeptical Inquirer. Damian Fernandez-Beanato is much better already, but still not by any means a specialist in Cicero, or even in ancient philosophy.It would be wise to compare Pigliucci's and Fernandez-Beanato's work with what some of the most respected ancient philosophy experts have written about this topic, such as Malcolm Schofield and A. A. Long (see Schofield 1986 (access possible via WP:LIBRARY) and Long 2005 (already used in the article)). Another useful source may be Wynne 2019, who is a Cicero expert but not a really well-established scholar as far as I know. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm late but here's my two cents: it's misleading to talk about "science" in the age of Cicero. While the ancients were doing what we'd call "proto-science", and while many Medieval thinkers were engaged in "natural philosophy" (what we call "science"), modern science as we understand it (a process involving empiricism, heavy reliance on mathematics, and results that can be tested and replicated) did not really emerge until the 16th Century at the earliest. So, the age of Galileo.
As to when astrology was widely recognized as "pseudoscience" -it's hard to tell. While Galileo was definitely doing empirical science (again, as we understand it), he was also involved in astrology. Even Newton was publishing on astrology in the 17th Century and it does not seem like this was anything unusual for a scientist of that age. I want to say the 18th Century was a turning point, and if that's what reliable sources say, it's probably accurate. The arguments about Cicero, while interesting, seem fringe. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
User:DolyaIskrina Wikipedia entered the name-calling era circa 2006 and put that vague pejorative in several articles -- here on 30 June 2006, you can pull up TALK if you want.  I think the term in modern familiarity is tagged to Karl Popper informal condemnation of Soviet educational mandates.  Pre-2000 critics most likely just said "superstition", and scientific bodies likely said nothing much since they hold it's not science so not their business.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Within a few words of the article, it is suggested that the reader is stupid if they believe in astrology by the word "pseudoscience", which does not sound very welcoming, in my opinion. We are told what astrology is (a divinatory practice), but then immediately told that it is not something else (a science). Why? There is a whole Wikipedia page called Astrology_and_science, where readers can explore why astrology is not a science, so why make so much of that issue on this page? A lot of the content of that Astrology and Science page is repeated on the Astrology page, with even the same segment names and photograph (eg. Karl Popper). I don't know which page came first, but the repetition does not give the impression that the editing has been thought out.
Perhaps the first sentence might read better saying that astrology is a divinatory practice and subjective belief system or esoteric study, rather than spend so much effort arguing the fact that it cannot be proven scientifically. There is mention of "Esoteric Astrology", which is hyperlinked, but this leads to the page about Alice Bailey. The word esoteric has a much broader meaning than referring to the astrological beliefs of one person, so should be hyperlinked on its own, in my opinion, rather than being tied to the word astrology. 
May I therefore suggest that much of the scientific criticism on the page is removed, and instead, a link to the Astrology_and_science page suffice, so that the article describes more of the beliefs of astrology for readers who just want to learn about the subject, without feeling that they have some sort of intellectual disability?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horsechestnut (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)  Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Because we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
By the way "Esoteric Astrology" to a section about Esoteric Astrology not Esoteric. That is in fact reached via Western esotericism. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I was referring more to if the word "esoteric" were added to the introductory sentence of the article, along with "belief system", rather than "pseudoscience". I'm not saying that the word "pseudoscience" should be omitted completely, but placed in another section of the article, perhaps called "controversies", and with a link to the Astrology and Science page. Horsechestnut (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
How about this opening sentence: "Astrology is a subjective, esoteric art and belief system which includes divination. It relies on the science of astronomy, but is not in itself scientific, and has therefore been termed pseudoscientific by some groups".Horsechestnut (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest reading a summary concerning fringe theories at Template:Talk fringe. I also point out the existence of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard which could be used to report any softening of this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Jc3s5h. By the way, my comments about being made to feel stupid etc were actually more about the Astrology_and-science page. Over here, my concerns are  more about the positioning of the "pseudoscientific" link, right at the beginning of the article, which I think sets an unfriendly tone. Horsechestnut (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
@Horsechestnut: it took months and months for us to come to consensus about moving the word "pseudoscience" three words to the right in the lede. Unfortunately, WP:SNOWBALL applies. wound theology◈ 08:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
People who believe in pseudosciences are not "stupid". They just lack specific knowledge tools to discern science from nonsense, or their ideology compels them to reject facts that do not fit in.
Being a pseudoscience is the most important property of astrology. We cannot just hide it somewhere just to avoid making you feel bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Hob Gadling. The Greek Logos means "word or reason", and a "rational form of discourse", suggesting that astrology is far from nonsense.
I don't dispute that Astrology is not an empirical science, nor that the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" should be associated with it, but to place it in the first sentence and lede, without giving other categories into which astrology falls, just gives the impression that editors have an axe to grind.
The art of music depends on the science of physics, so should music be called a pseudoscience?
The art of painting depends on the science of color pigment, so should painting be called a pseudoscience?
The art of photography again depends on the science of physics, specifically light and optics, so should photography too be called a pseudoscience? Horsechestnut (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Hard to know where to start wp:otherstuff or wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
suggesting that astrology is far from nonsense. LOL! So, if I want to convince you something is not nonsense, all I have to do is name it after an impressive Greek word?
Listen, no amount of arguing will turn this article into a gullible screed. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your bad reasoning. Read WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Please bear with me, I haven't finished yet. The more I read the article, the more I realize that you are really writing about Predictive Astrology, not Astrology as a whole . There are branches of astrology which are non-predictive, such as Spiritual Astrology and Psychological Astrology*. While these branches of astrology might still be "divinatory" in that they try to find some sort of symbolic meaning from astronomy, they do not attempt to predict the future, and since predicting the future is one of the criteria for modern science, there is no reason to slap a "pseudoscience" label on them. Therefore, the article should either be re-named as "Predictive Astrology" or, if you want to keep the general title of "Astrology", the pseudoscience association be limited to just the description of a section called Predictive Astrology, in my opinion.
Spiritual and Psychological astrology make every effort not to predict the future, and believe in Free Will.
And the "no causal mechanism" is a bit outdated in my opinion. If critics of astrology think that astrologers believe that the stars and planets have power over earthly affairs or emit some sort of tendril force down to earth, I would imagine that is really insulting to astrologers. The astrologers who I know, don't think that way at all. Instead they see our Solar System and the visible stars as markers in a big clock, measuring the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different times.
Just as science went through a revolution in the 1700s, and the word changed its meaning from "knowledge" to a more empirical study, involving falsifiability, making predictions, being objective, results being repeatable etc, astrology also went through a revolution, a bit later, in the 1800s with the re-birth of spiritual associations, such as Kabbalah and  Theosophy. But the real change came in the 1930s, when modern psychology became popular through the work of Freud and Jung, and recognition of the Sub-conscious mind. Astrology became more of a meditative study of personality. I would be happy to see the article express these ideas. Horsechestnut (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I have a very good friend, a wiki editor of old, who told me that I would really enjoy editing this project when I became a newbie. He gave me some advice, as follows - You need three things to edit wikipedia, sources, sources and sources.
I also really loved your sentence   Instead they see our Solar System and the visible stars as markers in a big clock, measuring the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different times.  but I'm not sure what it means. - Roxy the dog  04:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi Roxy the dog; What I'm saying is that I think that Astrology has little to do with the stars per se. It might rather be an attempt to explain human experiences (note I didn't say "events", but our experience of events) by correlation to the planetary positions as seen from earth, because the planets are a reliable clock-like mechanism, following set laws of nature, defined by Newton in the 1700s. In this theory, a person is born at a certain season on earth, at a certain location, and therefore has a "blueprint" of light energy associated with their birth. That light is mainly from our Sun (a star), and takes only 8 minutes to reach us on earth. The light from the other stars takes much longer to reach us, for example the Fixed Star Antares in the constellation of Scorpius takes 400 years, so logically, I don't think distant stars or the constellations have much physical effect on us, but they do serve as markers in this big cosmic clock (by the way this idea can be referenced/sourced in a book called The Cosmic Clocks by Michel Gauquelin) and I'm not sure if I am giving a very accurate description of the theory here.
The light aspect is one factor, but the other another  big physical influence is from the moon, which we know has a huge effect on water on the eath, through gravity. And then there's the earth's inherent magnetism from its core.
The astronomer/astrologer Ptolemy invented the Tropical Zodiac in 100 AD in order to deal with Precession Of the Equinoxes, and this "theoretical" Zodiac frees astrologers from the constellations so that they have a constant time keeping mechanism for plotting this birth-blueprint of energies, and also for measuring the positions of the transiting planets at any time. The theory is that these transiting plants interact with the birth - blueprint at a sub-conscious level (called the "astral" level). There are probably many sources for this information in books and on Wikipedia itself, which I haven't looked up myself, but I do have several astrology "cookbooks" about human personality which theorize on this sort of thing in their introductions.
The initial blueprint or horoscope also "progresses" through time, with one day of real time after birth representing a year. I have no idea how anyone could explain that scientifically, but I suspect that we will eventually find a rational, even scientific reason for it. Perhaps it is tied in with biological cycles - for example blood cells are replaced every two years, and the planet Mars has an apparent motion round the earth of two years. Since our bodies are made up of different systems - blood, respiratory, digestion etc, and the body is not separate from the mind, it seems perfectly feasible to me that we are connected to the light, gravity and magnetism, seemingly "outside" are bodies. All the religious and spiritual disciplines that I have studied (Kabbalah for about 40 years) have this connection or "Oneness" as their main tenet, and see the consciousness of separateness as an illusion. It is called Maya in Hinduism and the devil in esoteric Judaism/Christianity.
The other big concept which I think could do with a section, or page is Correlation in astrology. There was an astrologer named Andre Barbault who used astrological aspect, apparently to predict a huge pandemic in 2020 (decades before Covid), and several other astrologers did the same based on the conjunctions of Saturn and Pluto, and Jupiter and Pluto. https://astrostyle.com/plagues-pandemics-jupiter-pluto-conjunctions-in-history-what-astrology-knows/
There is also a website called Archetypal Explorer https://www.archetypalexplorer.com/welcome which published some graphs of the approaching conjunctions and separations of Jupiter and Pluto, and these coincided with peak infection (at least reporting of it) during the Covid pandemic. I realize that a lot of this could be Confirmation Bias but it is still worth mentioning, in my opinion. Horsechestnut (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation. They are very different, and you really need to stop wasting your time. Your commentary above is just that, commentary, which we cannot use to improve the article. Did you notice my initial comment above where I stressed the need for sources?
This is not a discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) but is for suggesting improvements to the article, and you haven't really made any concrete suggestions beyond vague complaints. - Roxy the dog  19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the commentary. I do know the difference between correlation and causation and do not confuse them, but once correlation is established, scientists can attempt to find causation.  Here are some links which I hope are useful:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205202510.htm (Season of birth may have long term effects on personality) which suggests that the Tropical Zodiac is more linked to science than the Sidereal Zodiac.
Influence of seasonal birth in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_seasonal_birth_in_humans
The seasons of man's life by psychologist Daniel Levinson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Levinson#Major_contributions (edit) which is similar to the astrological theory of planetary cycles coinciding with human developmental psychology.
Correlation of Saturn-Pluto conjunctions, squares and oppositions to historical events WWI, WWII, 9-11, Covid https://vocal.media/futurism/when-two-devils-meet-saturn-conjunct-pluto-in-capricorn-2020
Prediction from astrologer Liz Greene in 1980 of specific date for collapse of USSR. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/603050.The_Outer_Planets_and_Their_Cycles
 "So it may be that Pluto takes on the very literal meaning of death and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will no longer be a union" (p120)

Horsechestnut (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The first source that you point to quotes the lead researcher as saying "It's important to emphasize that, even though this sounds a bit like astrology, it is not: it's seasonal biology!" Schazjmd (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
"This definitely isn't astrology, guys, I promise" is pretty funny actually. wound theology◈ 05:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
This underlines the point I was making in my comment above, about the Tropical Zodiac, or "Seasonal" Zodiac. The word Tropical refers to earth's latitudes known as the Tropics where the Sun seems to turn around and head either north or south, increasing or decreasing the amount of daylight on earth, with the solstices representing where the Sun appears to stand still. This Tropical Zodiac is therefore more about earth's seasons than the stars or constellations, and I am not surprised that some people would compare it to Seasonal Biology/Psychology. Horsechestnut (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Nothing you say can be used to improve the article. You are trying to convince other users that astrology is not bullshit. Do that somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Trying to convince people that astrology is bullshit is equally counterproductive.  It is not Wikipedia's job to dictate what is true and what is not, but to express what is considered to be the case at the time, with due reference, especially in instances where there is significant disagreement.
So far, given the sources presented on this page, it is just as likely that astrologers are bad as that astrological theory is based on false premises.  No paper or publication linked "disproves" astrological theory, or "proves" that it is "pseudoscientific" in principle (frankly, it isn't, though the practices of astrologers based on it might constitute "pseudoscience").  In the pursuit of scientific rigour, one must be careful not to fall into "pseudoscepticism," clearly a horrifically popular pitfall amongst Redittors and Wikipedians.
I am a sceptic, it is what I do - I apply sceptical challenges to statements, incl. scientific, philosophical, sociological, psychological etc. (there is a lot you can do with raw reason and an exclusive commitment to a prioris and direct experience).  I came to this talk page to comment specifically that one of the papers provided in the fourth opening paragraph (Carlson, 1985) - a paper intended to show that astrology has been "successfully challenged on... experimental grounds" - simply doesn't do that.
Editors should actually read scientific papers instead of assuming their conclusions: Carlson's paper is inconclusive as regards astrological theory as a direct result of the experiment's structure, as discussed in the Results section.  As above, it is just as likely that the astrologers in question were bad at their job, or that the test subjects were disquieted by deep revelations pertaining to their characters or outcomes, as that astrology is based on faulty premises.  It is actually extremely difficult to construct an experiment that could "disprove astrology" (see below); it is far, far easier to enact experiments that "disprove astrologers," and there are plenty of those.  Note the difference, and do not be fooled into thinking that the latter can make up for the former.  That is one of the things that makes so many Wikipedians seem so deeply unscientific in their approach.
The second paper intended to show that astrology has been "successfully challenged on... experimental grounds" (Zarka, 2011) offers an inaccurate depiction of astrological theory in its opening paragraph.  It persists with this misunderstanding throughout.  No competent astrologer (if there is one) could consider that there are material influences from planets or stars themselves upon individuals; in theory, astrology elucidates natural patterns underpinning both celestial and mundane movements, viz. e.g. a "prime mover" which instigates both humanity and the astral panoply.  It might well, in fact, be unscientific to claim that there is no connection whatsoever between the positions of stars and planets and events on earth, tantamount to suggesting that physical laws are mutable through time and space (though this may in fact be the case - how one should conduct an experiment to discover if so is completely beyond me [as above], but I am comfortable with the epistemological limitations of humans as a result of my induction into scepticism, and do not need to pursue the matter).
The source for astrology having "no scientific validity or explanatory power" is a limited preview of a book, no page numbers given; in fact, the linked book appears to be a guide to a CD or web-based program.  The chapter titles presented suggest nothing whatsoever in the way of content discussing astrology in any academic capacity.  This is clearly not an appropriate source for the statement it supposedly supports.
Thus, in the opening paragraphs of this article, the main challenges to astrology-as-theory are an experiment which doesn't and cannot comment on the aptness of astrological theory; a paper which misunderstands astrological theory throughout; a chapter of a book on public attitudes towards science which a: misunderstands astrological theory and b: simply asserts (without evidence or reason) that it is "pseudoscientific" (Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Chapter 7), and finally a paper which acknowledges that there is actually some experimental evidence supporting astrological theory (Kelly et al, 1989: Astrology and science: an examination of the evidence), but it needs to be taken, as it were, with a pinch of salt (since e.g. "a broken clock is right twice a day").
None of this "evidence" (as flimsy as most of it is) supports the assertion that "astrology is bullshit;" at best I could accept "astrologers are bullshit," and would generally agree.  I have certainly not yet met a competent one knowingly.
The crusade people seem to enact on Wikipedia against so-called "pseudoscience" is both amusing and disturbing.  Firstly, very few seem to know the first thing about scepticism.  They apply it in one set of directions but never in the other.  This is religious behaviour, there is no rigour to it whatsoever.  Secondly, most are prone to accepting completely unscientific positions like e.g. reductionist materialism, the Big Bang, behaviourism, whatever it might be.  Clearly this is "science as religion," where there are sanctioned beliefs - orthodoxy - and unsanctioned beliefs - heterodoxy - filtered down from the heights of a doctrinal hierarchy.  As with all religions, there will be structural issues evident in the long run, and the whole edifice will come crumbling down bit by bit, to be replaced with - hopefully - something more nuanced, with less reliance on brute belief, obstinacy, and wilful ignorance.  Something more scientific. 146.199.181.254 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
(TL;DR) . If there is a change request somewhere in that text, could you extract it and propose it in a clear and concise manner? Thanks. --McSly (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


### Astrology
Not “Damien” Fernandez-Beanato. Please fix it. Thanks a lot! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate it! --86.31.178.164 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to request changes to all mentions of the Sun to be capitalized. As of now there are a mix in the article of lowercase and capitals, and I believe that capitals should be used. Thank you. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 01:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Care to give some examples of this "contradiction"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)