Talk:Astrology/Archive 9

message: There is a sentence which says, astrology makes no claim of correlation to the personality tests. Can that be verified or sourced? I think, common sense says, astrology should correlate to personality tests if astrology works. The only way to experimentally test if an astrological prediction using natal charts on personality works, is to see if the prediction matches with what the client thinks on his own personality. 
Then, the statement self-reported views of themselves in questionnaires may be flawed is a very general blanket and misleading statement. Personality tests like the California Personality Inventory (used in the nature study) are widely believed to be a very accurate self-assessment. So, the statement self-reported views of themselves in questionnaires may be flawed should be reworded or changed to include the fact that there are accurate personality tests as well. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the reference, where this is clearly stated. Aquirata 09:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the reference, and I didn't find anything clearly stated. Can you point out exactly what is clearly stated in the reference?Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism is clearly OR. Unless it can be source it has no place here. Jefffire 15:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OR to assume that astrology and personality tests measure the same thing. Astrology and personality tests may each accurately measure different things. Piper Almanac 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Astrology makes predictions on personality. Personality tests make predictions on personality. So, when the personality tests are accurate like the California Personality Inventory, you would expect astrological predictions to correlate with personality tests, if astrology works.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Prove it, or in the spirit of Wikipedia, verify it. Jefffire 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, a total lack of understanding the issues. Personality cannot be reduced to simplistic ideas. Science as it stands today cannot measure personality. So personality tests and inventories have absolutely nothing to do with astrology. Aquirata 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said "Science as it stands today cannot measure personality". That is clearly wrong. We can verify it with 
Then VERIFY IT! Jefffire 12:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We did but some people insist on removing that ref. Aquirata 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reference does not say that disproof is made more difficult, that is your OR, which will be removed. Jefffire 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correlation to the personality tests 

message: The sentence According to Dennis Elwell, Dean's actual purpose in producing this book was "to undermine astrology’s fundamental tenets... behind the smoke screen of reviewing the literature.".
What's the purpose of including this line? To me, it appears irelevant to the previous statements, and a baseless accusation. Also, there is no continuity from the two lines before this. And, if this is only a personal view by Dennis Elwell, why are we including it in the article? Unless other astrologers also make this accusation, I think it would qualify as an extreme minority view and shouldn't be included(as per WP:NPOV)Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the two sentences, which only amount to bickering. Aquirata 09:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with a shorter version: "Dean himself has suggested that continued interest in astrology is based on intuition and gullibility, though his analyses have been criticized by astrologers as agenda-driven." If we're going to introduce him his basic viewpoint on the discipline needs to be clear. Marskell 09:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good, although the placement of this sentence may not be the best. Aquirata 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennis Elwell 

message: I may be mistaken in saying this, and if I'm mistaken, I sincerely apologize. But, I think User:Aquirata's revert was in bad faith. I suggest that User:Aquirata discuss his problems before reverting them. In my opinion, I don't think it's correct to say "give me time" and remove a valid sourced statement. It should be there until you can find more examples.  Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 10:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's unfair? "Certain" organizations is what it says, not "all" organizations, It's absolutely true that "certain" organizations criticize astrology, just like "certain" cars run on solar power, though I can't name five. Doovinator 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my point. I think, there's only a single organizzation here (as the refs seem tosuggest), and that's CSICOP. Unless you can come up with a source which names many more organizations, it's the generalization which is unfair, don't you think?  Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, there may or may not be more; it's ambiguous, but acceptable, in my view. Doovinator 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your viewpoint, but it ain't acceptable in my view.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming bad faith is against WP:AGF. Aquirata 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But witnessing it being displayed, by you, is not. Why don't you discuss your deletes in the talk page, before you delete it?Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Faith 

message: Regarding Nature, it's essential to mention that it's a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal to highlight the credibility & hence importance) of that research, compared to other astrological researches published in non-scientific journals. So, I'm going to put that in again. This is not "defending" Nature, but showing the importance of that research. Aquirata, if you have a problem with this, discuss it here before you revert.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nature does pretty much zippo in astrological research. It's like citing Gourmet on global warming. Both are prestigious, important journals in their field, both commenting on something way out of their pond. Doovinator 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. Nature is excellent at reporting scientific research in any topic. In this case it happens to be astrology. So your analogy isn't right. Almost everything can be looked from a scientific perspective, and there's little which is more credible in "scientific research in astrology" than Nature. In fact, I'd say that the nature article is much more credible than any other research in astrology, because of the stringent quality checking and the fact that only sufficiently ground-breaking research is considered.  Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The odd thing to me is that science, which is based on observation alone and not at all on authority, now spends more time arguing over authority than doing any kind of ground-breaking research. Stringent quality checking and the like is great for weeding out frauds; witness the Korean cloning scandal, but it's not research. Doovinator 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the Dickens are you talking about? There is now more "groundbreaking" research going on than before and it is increasing all the time. There is also very little argueing over authority in comparison, only validity. The argueing is happening here, not there, since the foundation of Wikipedia is authority. Jefffire 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Research requires valid hypotheses. In the case of the Shawn Carlson test, there were a few astrologers who refused to participate because of flaws in the hypothesis. Nature did not report these flaws because the editors do not understand astrology or what a valid hypothesis would be. The test was severely criticized by Hans Eysenck. Piper Almanac 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nature is a non-contender when it comes to astrological research. A top scientific journal is not an authority on everything on Earth just like you wouldn't expect the same from a top astrological magazine. Aquirata 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vorpal blade, read the Talk page, don't just use it! Aquirata 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nature is a super contender when it comes to "scientific research on astrology". A top scientific researcg journal is an authority on scientific research on anysubject. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a joke, right? When the editors and the contributors peer-reviewing articles have no knowledge of astrology, they will have no clue as to the relevance and accuracy of the article being submitted. This was witnessed by the badly flawed Shawn Carlson tests being accepted, which was criticised from left and right (I shall find a few refs for that for later inclusion in the article). They have since learned not to publish any astrological material. So Nature is absolutely no authority on any research into astrology, scientific or not. Aquirata 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No joke at all. You don't need to know anything about astrology to test if its predictions work. If someone says based on A, becuase of blah...blah..yadda..yadda B and C should be same, you don't need to know the "blah...blah..yadda..yadda" to see if B is the same as C. Meanwhile, I'll find a few refs which says why the objections to the Calson test are silly. It's not that they didn't learn not to publish, but the fact that the other researches didn't have sufficent quality as per the peer review. This is exactly why we should include peer review.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's only your opinion, which in this case is a minority opinion. But I'm curious, why is it untenable? Many contributors would consider it as tenable. Thank science to the ones who didn't come and go!Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to ask why it's untenable to make claims on a subject without knowing anything about it? Aquirata 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm curious to know why you regard experimental evidence, which requires no knowledge of astrology, as untenable. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me about experimental evidence on astrology that doesn't presuppose astrological knowledge. Aquirata 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any claim can be tested in the absence of further knowledge on the subject. Claim having foo in you sign at birth increases the likely-hood of being fooist? That can be objectively tested. This is very basic application of the scientific method. Jefffire 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me what you mean by you[r] sign at birth. Aquirata 10:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick lunge to the left, and he evades! siafu 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put siafu. As everyone who took the time to follow the link will know, foo is a philosophical place holder to show the exact nature of the prediction is irrelevent. What matters is that it will be testable. Jefffire 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature 

message: Added further claims, such as elections, climate change, Moon phase vs birth & death. Aquirata 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back to the great Astrology books that were published in the early '70s, my favorite validation for Astrology are the parallel lives of twins separated at birth.  Try to "environment" that.  Andrew Homer 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims 

message: Regarding again your almost amusing habit of inverting even the slightest criticism of astrology, I was thinking this. Change:
* "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures" to
* "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures. However, so have slavery and infanticide."
Would you mind? 
That people object to a lack of mechanism is a fact. We can probably find astrological sources saying so. This "yes, but" you're demanding is unneeded, disingenuous, and actually reads as rather juvenile. Marskell 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The counterpoint to the 'mechanism' objection is relevant. Your example is not. Aquirata 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is intensitive. Any point introduced that's critical, the knee-jerk response is to grope for some way to invert it. This is a perfect example of not letting the facts speak for themselves. Marskell 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about:
* "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures. However, so have slavery, infanticide, and Republicans:  pludering pension funds, stealing Presidential elections, and delaying AIDS research."  Andrew Homer 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiking the orange juice 

message: Chris, you have removed this book, which I'm not familiar with (and the author's name was incorrect I believe). Amazon's reviews are very positive in general, and 52% buy the book after viewing its page (which is a very high ratio). In your opinion, do the inaccuracies outweigh the overall value of the book to justify removal? In other words, is the reader better off without knowing about this book? Aquirata 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that popularity alone was a reasonable gauge for the "overall value" of a book. siafu 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about popularity at all, and no connection was made to the overall value, anyway. Your point? Aquirata 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's all you talked about: positive reviews on Amazon, and good sales.  Both of those are merely indications of popularity.  My point is that this does nothing to indicate that the book has any value at all-- the only thing that's been said that is indicative is that it's inaccurate. siafu 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, you are misunderstanding me. Getting good reviews does not equal popularity. The fact that people decide to buy the book and not something else after viewing it on Amazon does not equal popularity. They both translate to perceived value. Sales volume or sales rank would correlate to popularity, but this is not at issue. My comment was directed at seemingly good perceived value at Amazon vs. Chris' evaluation. Aquirata 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I misunderstand so grossly.  A sales figure, like the fact that 52% of people buy the book after viewing the page, is a measure of popularity only.  So too is the fact that it is reviewed positively.  The content of those reviews may be interesting to us, but the mere fact that they are generally positive is not.  However, it's also true that "perceived value" based on the perceptions of the public at large is no more useful in determining a book's overall value in terms of its factual accuracy and informativeness than popularity. siafu 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Chris, thanks for that detailed overview. Given your firm opinion on this, we should replace that cite with Holden, Campion or Curry, or whoever is appropriate in the context. Aquirata 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Chris, thanks from me, too. I didn't purchase this book because I couldn't find an academic review of it.     I do purchase books by astrologers to learn about the practice, but have typically found that practitioners who write about the history can't help but include an agenda in making astrology seem as favorable as possible.  A rare exception is Holden, but he seems to have some classical training.  Even Curry and Campion's works were disappointing because their biases show in their research.  On the other hand, it's distracting when writers of history of ancient beliefs add arguments or commentary on why the belief is silly in modern times.  I just want the facts, not whether or not it's stupid to believe in something. Zeusnoos 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. On Palchus, Pingree thought Eleutherius was identifying Abu Mashar with this name.  So the question might then be how much of the material is 14th century and how much is Abu Mashar. Zeusnoos 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually been thinking that maybe we shouldn't have that section in the first place because of issues such as this, and also because any books placed on that list seem to act as a sort of endorsement of a particular position, or tradition, or school of astrology.  I mean, I personally like all of the books on the list right now, but that is just because they sort of cater to my own astrological tastes, but that isn't necessarily true for other people.  So eventually, unless we expand that list considerably (which I don't think that we should do), we are going to end up discriminating against certain traditions or types of astrology just by the fact that we have putting some books in while leaving others out due to space restrictions.  I mean, I have a pretty good reason for preferring that some other book replaces Bobrick's book due to specific mistakes inherent in it, but is there really a reason why we don't have a book on Indian astrology up there?  What about Chinese, Mesoamerican, Traditional astrology, etc.?  Do you get what I'm saying?  --Chris Brennan 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you can't include every single book ever written, but that's not a reason for tossing the rest. Doovinator 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just pointing out that the article is on the general topic of "astrology" and from the point of view of other traditions of astrology there are far more important books which should be on the recommended reading list.  There is no book currently in existence which covers or even touches upon all of the different traditions and branches of astrology, so somehow you would have to narrow it down to one book to represent the entirety of each tradition in the interests of neutrality and length restriction issues, and it would still be a longer list than we need here.  Unfortunately we all know that there really isn't one book in any tradition which is ever really able to summarize everything from that period.  So... I would rather just get rid of it because it forces us to make the article biased.  Its not like we are supposed to have a recommended reading section, or that this is some sort of requirement or something.  Who are we to say which book best represent astrology as a whole? What do we say to those who want to put the major books of their tradition in the list?  'Get lost'? --Chris Brennan 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put 2-3 books per section in the recommended list. The list will build just like any other portion of the article. Each of us has his own opinion, and eventually we'll get to some kind of a consensus. Aquirata 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobrick's The Fated Sky 

message: Why do you keep deleting "peer reviewed"? Your comment is that "rmv fluff and irrelevance".
But it's not irrlevance. It shows the importance and the credibility of the research. Please, oh please discuss here before you make changes! You're (inadvertently?) insulting the work of other editors by deleting without discussing!Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody knows that all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's like stating that "ball bearings contain globe-shaped balls. It is irrelevant information. We shouldn't be trying to fluff up statements to make them look better than they are. Aquirata 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are mistaken. Not all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. For an example, most scientific papers on astrology are not published in peer reviewed scientific journals.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific journals" - you surely knew that this is what was meant from the context? Aquirata 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't. Care to elaborate?Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, you're taking this as an undignified attack on astrology. What I'm trying to show by including "reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal" is the importance and credibility of this scientific research on astrology compared to other similar researches. I think, the fact that this research is the only one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is essential to this section. I can live with it as it stands now, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aquarita is insisting on "Not all of these claims have been published in mainstream scientific journals" rather than none because he wants to mislead the reader. But no, sorry, we can't point out Nature is peer-reviewed? C'mon. Marskell 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming bad faith is against WP:AGF. As I have pointed out several times, Med Hypotheses appears to be a MSJ. Aquirata 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviewed 

message: This discussion was discontinued. What about the the researches that showed that the "Mars effect" was biased, such as the "throw-away" bias research, the CFEPP study and the claims that astrology has no relation to the mars effect? May I reinlcude them with sources? That was again deleted without any consensus being reached.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there going to be deleted we should delete Ertel as well and simply leave "numerous studies claiming to replicate or refute it". Perhaps cite each of the verbs with one of the studies. Marskell 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use the latest sources we can find, and Ertel's is the latest. It applies citation analysis to all the prior studies and found results, the "eminence effect". There has been some detailed response by Dean, answered by Ertel, but this was just speculation as to possible demographic factors that might have caused the eminence effect. This just happens to be where things stand now. Piper Almanac 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we using alcoholism from the 80s when Chris provided a quote from a decade later declaiming it? Marskell 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't try to obscure the situation here with "facts".  We don't need any of those.  I'm sure that these guys have a perfectly irrational explanation for this.  --Chris Brennan 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marskell, I don't recall any such quote. Perhaps you or Chris can provide? Aquirata 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it seems there is no such quote or claim. Aquirata 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mars effect critiscims

message: This is an unnecessarily brief section. Any takers? Aquirata 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is 45+ K. Marskell 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is already way too long.  We might have been able to expand the history section if you guys hadn't gone overboard with the science section, but it is a little late for that now.  --Chris Brennan 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shit, it's actually 57k. A lot of this is refs, which don't count toward the total, and the external links at the end. Per not a collection of links that section should be reduced. But we definitely shouldn't be expanding when it's this overweight. Marskell 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Astrology and science section is longer than desirable because the underlying article was deleted. It is very hard to cram all relevant issues here without a backup article. Aquirata 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutely no need for the science section to be as long as it is. Personally I think that we have been far too tolerant of non-notability in allowing the stuffing in every barking mad claim under the sun. Jefffire 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we begin by deleting some of the excessive referencing in the other claims section. Jefffire 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The central fact as I see it is Aquirata turning every criticism into a "yes, but..." It's bloating the paragraphs. Marskell 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the biggest problem for article size. Perhaps Aquirata would be happiest initiating a new Wiki dedicated to astrology? Jefffire 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest removing the entire External Links section. The links are VERY arbitrary and in need of serious editing. Unlike the very excellent article, which is professional and reasonably objective (despite all the arguments about it), the External Links look like pandering to some particular individuals. You can use the extra space for more history. Don't gut the Astrology and Science further (in my opinion). DavidCochrane 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Added some references there. As we probably won't need all six, please delete the ones you think are not worthy of inclusion. Aquirata 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Thanks for making the article needlessly even longer again Aquirata.  --Chris Brennan 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not sign up with a userid and help with this article?  You have excellent suggestions.  Please look at the history of astrology article where much material has migrated from this general article.  While I would only use scholarly sources, it doesn't seem to be the general wiki policy to do so - many non-institutional websites are referenced, and most editors are not academics with access to the proper book and journal materials. Experts in any given topic are treated in an egalitarian manner, which is a reason why one of the founders of wikipedia left.  Astrologers generally do not think outsiders are experts in 'their' subject. This is partially true when you get down to the nitty-gritty of contemporary practice (techniques used, information about the astrological community) but biases about what is and is not important to the general public are frequently introduced. There are numerous spin-off pages about specific methods and meanings - astrologers are writing these pages. They don't seem to receive as much scrutiny as this article from an epistemological standpoint, but this is the one article that discusses claims of astrology as a science. Zeusnoos 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaucer and Shakespeare 

message: What does astrology predict for people born on space stations in interstellar space, on a Mars colony etc.????? Count Iblis 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions? 

message: As an astronomy educator, I take great issue with many of the pseudoscience claims in this article. The removal of the historical connection to alchemy was ridiculous and the claims that it represents a protoscience because it can explain human traits is laughable. You will find no professional astronomer (that is people who actually study the heavens) who agrees with this subject as a legitimate research topic. I have no objections to characterizing this popular folk-superstition as such, but since it is not a belief based on the rigors of the academy nor the scientific methods, claims to the contrary need to be contextualized and the considerable amount of work that debunks astrology needs to be covered in this article in a better fashion than is currently done. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. We need to present the scientific stance, that astrology is pseudoscience, as the majority viewpoint. Some of us have been trying, but have found this very difficult due to the edits by two contributors in particular (see Archive-7, and Archive-8). Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're turning over a new leaf. I encourage those editors to join us in presenting the topic fairly and from a neutral point of view. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've expressed in a few short words the catastrophic failing of Wackipedia. Can there be a neutral point of view with respect to facts versus myths and nonsense. Are chiromancy, necromancy, tarot card reading, the hollow earth hypothesis, geocentrism, etc., etc., all to be treated from a so-called neutral point of view (which constitutes the very dogmatic point of view called epistemological relativism, BTW) or are the facts going to be faced up to here. Some things are true and some are false, some theories are scientific and the overwhelmingly vast majority are not. Here are an aleph-null number of theories for your consideration which someone (or some group) somewhere might consider for experimentation and potential falsification: 1) "theory of the invisible elf"-- there is an elf which immediately intervenes and endows human beings with free will whenever they (appear to themselves ) to make a choice. 2) There are two such elves. 3) there are three such elves......there are an infinite number of such elves!! How do you KNOW it's not true. Has it been tested and disconfirmed or what?? Of course not. Why?? Because it is "apriori" ridiculously implausible. Science (or better humanity) does not have infinite resources to spend investigating all of the outlandish theories that the imagination of man CAN INVENT. It certainly cannot be impartial about them. Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory because it has controllable practical consequence which HAVE been effectively controlled and demonstrated to explain and predict measurable phenomena in a laboratory setting. To compare astrology with QM is a frightening and destroys the very meaning of science. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacatosias, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that the article should consist solely of the statement - "Astrology is pseudoscientific superstitious nonsense, you don't need to see its identification, move along."  If unscientific or wacky theories have existed in history and have had an impact, an encyclopedia should describe them.  (Actually, there is historical precedent for the invisible elf theory - replace the word elf with 'guardian daimon' and you have Proclus' ontology of sublunar beings, although there are not infinite daimons but fewer daimons than human beings, and some daimons, acc. to Proclus, influence other human beings by way of a mediating human.)  Editors are attempting to describe astrology, which has had considerable impact in history and contemporary culture, and what practitioners do, and what they actually believe. If some practioners believe that astrology is a science and have attempted to investigate it by scientific methods, or if they have offered pseudoscientific explanations, let it be described. Where input from believers is most unhelpful is in the POV edits that slant it toward some sort of scientific status. If you find the description of how some astrologers are clinging to quantum physics to be slanted toward POV, then edit away. Zeusnoos 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, if you want to see a real travesty, look at Electional astrology where you'll find statements about inspired Sages from 3000 BC who shared their great wisdom of astrology to seers throughout the ages.  Seriously, begin tackling this mess and battling believer POV doesn't require experts in science but those with acumen in the history of astrology.  Zeusnoos 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  What do you think about this edition? I think it's a major improvement with regards to NPOV.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. This is the most strongly worded edit I have ever seen from ScienceApologist and it reflects the dreadful state that the article has degenerated into under the POV pushing of Aquirata (who is still refusing to either agree or disagree to a mediation to try and resolve this mess). Jefffire 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is a travesty

message: * First, this  is given as a claim that astrological researchers have found statistical correlations for behavioural attributes. That reference does not validate that claim. This  is the other reference given for that claim. In the reference, it's clearly stated that
"This is a work still in progress so no claim is being made (or can be made) as to whether or not there is any validity to astrology. The claim I do make is that this method (comparing objectively observable horoscope features, such as angles between planets and midpoints, with objectively observable phenomena in the lives of people, e.g. murder) is a valid way to put astrology to the test. Further results will be reported as obtained.".
As a result, I'm removing the ref and the claim of behavioural attributes.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very bad, POV edits. You have no idea what astrology is. Aquirata 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work Vorpal blade! That 15% chance of decapitation rolled in ;). Let's keep working to remove the frivilous references. Jefffire 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  Thank you for getting to the bottom of Aquirata's bogus claims.  --Chris Brennan 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some really great digging here, Vorpal. Kudos. Marskell 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong references 

message: Ok, I think that the sagan comment on the humanist article is being twisted out of context. His statement, from  was
"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology" statement, not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong. Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded"
It currently says "he found the statement's tone authoritarian and the points made peripheral and unconvincing." Notice that he did say That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. The statement, as it stand now, is very misleading.
Any objection in the article from sagan should say,
* astrology has no validity whatsoever
* tone of the statement is authoritarian
* To discuss the psychological motivation is peripheral to issue of validity
* that there is no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing
Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Sagan 

message: "A Wikipedian has expressed the opinion that this article is unbalanced."
Indeed!!! I'd rather suggest that some of the folks who have written subtantial parts of this article and obviously believe in this hocus-pocus are the ones who are truly unbalanced. Good Christ!!! I know Wikipedia is a terrible magnet for cranks and frauds of all sorts, but this is way too much. Jimbo, this shit is a laughinstock and I'll send a copy of this to the editors of Encylopedia Brittanica if something is not done about it ASAP. 
As for myself, I am going to find out about the future this afternoon during lucnch with the offical reading of the internal organs of various fowl: the daily reading of the holy giblets!! And why not? It almost certainly  has as much scientific and epistemological standing as astrology. Does anybody remeber the mame of that ancient practice anyway?? fegatomancy, scaromancy or crapomacy  (;..    10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Language like this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and strongly suggests that you haven't come to terms with WP:NPOV. If you're going to play, play nice. William Pietri 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The offical reading of the giblets

message: I think it would be best to condense the section on Ertel down to a reference after the word "replicate". Basicaly he does not seem to have added anything scientific to the study, and the only references provided are highly dubious sources. By condensing we avoid giving undue weight. Jefffire 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you clearly demonstrate a total lack of understanding with respect to this line of research. I suggest you read the Kollerstrom reference. Aquirata 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charming you are. I repeat my suggestion of reducing this down on the grounds of it's unreliability and lack of scientific respect. Jefffire 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite Aquirata's highly civil and reasoned contribution to the discussion, I've reworded the section to avoid all undue weight. Only the intial work by Gauquelin is of any notability so only that is mentioned in any detail. I've based the last sentence on the complete absence of scientific papers on the subject in mainstream publications, so I trust that will be acceptable. Jefffire 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Piper's edit summary point, I have worded my reword to make note that Ertel's work is distinct. Jefffire 13:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The work seems to have been undone without discussion as part of Aquirata's usual rapid fire edit crunching. Only the original work by Gauquelin is notable, so I've condensed all the skeptics and astrologers works into a single sentence to avoid any and all undue weight. It is far better this way than making note of all the minor claims of Ertel and Zelin. Jefffire 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ertel mention. 

message: 30 edits in less than an hour.  Why are you not presenting your changes here first? Zeusnoos 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bloody annoying, particularly the subtle tweaking of language perceived as critical ("has had" to "had," which you just noticed, for instance). Marskell 14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also notice the not so subtle deletions of the nature article, and the inclusion of the med hypothesis although it clearly contradicts the claim.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there some sort of policy against this sort of editing?  I seem to recall some sort of guideline about making the least number of edits possible so that it doesn't mess up the edit history, but I can't seem to find that rule at the moment.  It does seem like a pretty underhanded way to push through changes. --Chris Brennan 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody annoying, isn't it? And I was simply following in the footsteps of some of the more experienced editors here. When they were doing it, you were silent. When they were quoting WP:BB and WP:IAR, that was just dandy. Now you're up in arms. Where were you when I was calling for cooperation? I'd say perhaps you should examine your double-standards. Perhaps there should be some ground rules laid down beyond policies and guidelines, as I had proposed. Or would that go beyond what you are prepared to observe? Aquirata 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Marskell 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, you need more sleep! This could even help in developing a more positive attitude towards your fellow editors. Aquirata 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall making 30 edits in under an hour and trying to hide major deletion under minor edits. And if I had, two wrongs don't make a right. Looks like WP:Point to me. Jefffire 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not make unfounded accusations. Nothing was "hidden" under minor edits. Everything was fully explained in the edit summaries. And do you have something against a concentrated effort to edit the article? Should I hang out all day at the keyboard like some of you do? Would that make me a better WP editor? Is there a policy or guideline for this? So please spare me from your ad hominems. Aquirata 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charmed. Jefffire 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquiratas, where's your discussion of changes? 

message: Changed "Research" and "Claims and counter-claims" to more descriptive subtitles.  Everything under research was about astrologers' claims of obstacles to research.  I think it should also be moved below the Research claims and counter-claims.   Zeusnoos 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much more apt now. Thanks! Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to subtitles 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&diff=64654521&oldid=64654363
This edit removed alchemy on the basis of "POV tangent".  I don't think this is tangential since astrology is often grouped by historians with alchemy as protosciences or pseudosciences that result in motivation of the development of a science (in this case, astronomy and chemistry).
I know there has been some discussion of protoscience here, and I didn't write this phrase originally, but it seems that it should not be removed since it helps define protoscience.  Zeusnoos 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the comparison is POV, but it might be tangential because it leaves a lot just hanging out there. If Newton wasn't an alchemist, would he have been as motivated? Astrology has contributed to astronomy, math, and psychology. It still contributes to psychology, as most Jungians study it to some degree and are motivated by it. Can it be reworded in a non-leading way? Piper Almanac 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inasmuch as psychology is not psychoanalysis, you may need to revise your last statement. Psychoanalysis is not accepted as an academic or scientific discipline. --ScienceApologist 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not accepted? Please elaborate. Doovinator 04:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Psychoanalysis is certain not a scientific discipline, but it certainly is an academic discipline as are many other non-scientific studies such as literature, art theory, history, philosophical theories, etc. Zeusnoos 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychoanalysis is an extreme minority theoretical standpoint in the world of clinical psychology.  The only place it seems to have any cred whatsoever these days is in literary theory, where it simply refuses to die. siafu 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paraphrase of a line I heard once upon a time: "The only people still interested in Freud are English professors." Marskell 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  put back reference to alchemy and protoscience 

message: I added a reference to the statement that Jung thought astrology was a descriptive language of the psyche, but not predictive.  The specific passage is the following. After he says mythologized processes in nature are not allegories but "symbolic expressions of the inner, unconscious drama of the psyche which becomes accessible to man's consciousness by way of projection," he indicates his adherence to famous precession argument:
"In the case of astrology, for instance, this age-old "scientia intuitiva" came to be branded as rank heresy because man had not yet succeeded in making the psychological description of character independent of the stars. Even today, people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for the old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars. And yet anyone who can calculate a horoscope should know that, since the days of Hipparchus of Alexandria, the spring-point has been fixed at 0* Aries, therefore quite arbitrary, the spring-point having graduatlly advanced, since the, into the first degrees of Pisces, owing to precession fo the equinoxes...
"'The stars of thine own fate lie in they breast,' says Seni to Wallenstein-a dictum that should satisfy all astrologers if we know even a little about the secrets of the heart. But for this, so far, men have had little understanding. Nor would I dare to assert that things are any better today." Zeusnoos 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have a little more perspective on this "not predictive" statement. Jung didn't associate the workings of the psyche with the stars as constellations (sidereal zodiac) and neither do Western astrologers, who use the tropical zodiac. When he says that astrology is not predictive, I take that to mean not predictive in a fatalistic or deterministic sense. The drama projected by the psyche is not a question of specifics, but of archetypal processes. Piper Almanac 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write the sentence in question. But it's clear that what Jung criticizes is "people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for the old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars." Influence of stars, to him, means physical, causal, influence of constellations/stars. He does not explore that fact that western astrologers practice with a tropical zodiac - it's irrelevant to his take on astrology.   Rather, he proposes that the symbolism of astrology is not dependent on such mechanism for meaning.  In a later work published before Synchronicity he describes his experience of coincidence when putting together the sun/moon marriage study:  "Although I was obliged to express doubt, earlier, about the mantic character of astrology, I am now forced as a result of my astrology experiment to recognize it again." (The Structure and Dynamics of the Unconscious). He describes this 'mantic' character is the coincidental arrangement of pairs of charts on his desk with Moons conjunct and other configurations that he considered meaningful.  While his use of the word mantic is anachronistic, what he means is that astrology offers symbolic meanings that show up without the predictive character of 'such and such will/is likely to happen in the future' because it is written in the symbols. Using astrological symbolism to find meaning through coincidence is not normal astrological practice.Zeusnoos 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jung reference 

message: "By the seventeenth century, scientists were so reluctant to consider that heavenly bodies had any effect on earthly conditions that Newton had difficulty affirming the theory of universal gravity, as well as (and especially) the theory that the moon caused tides on earth."
<shakes his head in disgust and cries at this irrational, irrelevant attempt at POV pushing.>Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad state of affairs 

message: Aquirata, please stop vandalising the astrology page, like your edits 
, ,  . These have been discussed before, and you are repeatedly editing against consensus.
Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Please familiarize yourself with the term "vandalism" before making baseless accusations. You may also point me to the relevant section in Talk where consensus in your opinion is present regarding my edits. Aquirata 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, Wikipedia doesn't say what you did as vandalism. But you are repeatedly POV pushing and editing against consensus. This is highly disruptive. If you scroll up a bit, you might see the relevant sections in Talk. I'm suprised that you can't find it, but maybe you are ignoring it on purpose, becuase this is not the first time you're doing this/ Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request