Talk:Astrology/Archive 6

message: Aquirata wrote: "Astrology has traditions going back for thousands of years, and it had been considered as a science for much of that tradition. For most of written history, philosophy stood at the top of the scientific edifice, so astrology, which is also a form of philosophy, was naturally held in high regard."
::I disagree with this statement on historical grounds.  The history of astrology is far more nuanced and cannot be reduced to saying it has been considered a science for much of the tradition.  Nor was it universally respected, even in the Hellenistic period. (I've discussed some of this in other places) Yes, it was immensely popular in, say, the Roman Empire, but it was also banned by certain Roman laws and was criticized on skeptical, philosophical, and religious grounds, even and perhaps especially while it enjoyed some popularity.  
::Other than the fact that I'm following these articles as an means to avoid work, I generally have not contributed much on these issues because this Wikipedia format leads to numerous historical generalizations sourced from popular (meaning, not necessarily academic) accounts. The problem is intensified with astrology because it is a contemporary practice, and not simply an historical phenomenon. The historical sources are available, but when you have so many people with half-baked opinions and something personal at stake, the pool is muddy.
::These efforts to keep the astrology articles free of skepticism are ludicrous.  Not that it does or should make a difference, but I can says this and answer Doovinator's challenge (if he would provide whether the SA is precessed, and for the living, travel or natal location), and I can be satisfied with allowing the word 'pseudoscience' as the known category scientists and philosophers of science use for it. 
::My vote is that this sentence stays: "Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers [citation needed] and as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community." As for citations on astrology as divination, Roy Willis and Patrick Curry, Astrology, Science and Culture, Berg Press, 2005.  This work is highly problematic, however there is one good chapter discussing how astrology is viewed by astrologers (useful resource for the proposed theories article). This is a very recent book and takes previous work on this subject such as that by Phillipson in account.  Another citation: Geoffrey Cornelius, A Moment of Astrology, (not sure of the press, 1994, reprinted recently - 2004?).  Even under Jungian theory (cf Maggie Hyde's work) astrology is still considered divination.  The question, then becomes, how does one theorize about divination?  Out of scope for this article. Zeusnoos 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second edition of Cornelius' book was printed in 2003. Aquirata 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many alleged uses you mean. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever that astrology works. So, applying it to such fields is really a sad reflection of the lack of rational thinking in our society, IMO. This is why, I wanted a section on the percieved harmful effects of astrology in our society. siddharth 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A shot in the pseudoscience wars 

message: This was just semi-protected so anons cannot edit it. This was caused by 32.106.141.58 but is unfortunate for 59.92.40.65 who did not exceed the revert limit. Try starting an account! Marskell 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Here is copy of the deleted topic of discussion on - Need for Specialist astrologers" - to which there have been no comments / opinions expressed for the last 3 months. Let the lovers of astrology (general public) know the truth from the learned commentrators on astrology.
Need for specialist astrologers
Now a days we find that most of astrologers worldwide intend to show that they are specialist in different branches of astrology, & also guide the aspirants. The debate is whether their claims can have some basis.
Vedic astrology has the richest literature covered in over 400,000 aphorisms, gifted by the Sages & Acharyas in the last over 5 millenniums. It has three main branches viz, astronomy (Siddhanta), Samhitas (dealing with mundane, meteorology, omens & portents, constructional matters, electional astrology etc.) & Predictive (Hora) astrology. The predictive astrology has various branches such as Horoscopy (Jaataki), Electional (Muhurt) astrology, Annual (Tajik) horoscopy, Horary (Prashna) astrology, Female (Streejaataki) horoscopy, Recconstructional (Nashtajaatakam) astrology, Jaimini Sutras (a special system of prediction), Astro - Palmistry (Graha- Samudriki), Remedial astrology etc. etc. But none of the exponents blessed us with treatises on more than one subject. The only except is the great Acharya Varaha Mihir – who gifted us excellent treatises on the three said branches.
Some of the exponents have opined that they have learnt this subject not only in this birth but is the outcome of their Karmas & study in their last births also. It is impossible for human being to learn & master one branch of this futurity science in one birth.
When none on the Hindu exponents have dared to touch more than one subject of Hindu astrology, it is now thought possible by modern astrologers to claim specialization in more than one branch of astrology.
Further when we have now specialist in the field of each branch of the knowledge like engineering, science, medicine, law, economics … ; how come that we have not felt the need for specialist astrologers in specific branch of astrology, & have been accepting astrologers capable to guide aspirants in more than one of its branches.
To cite an example, one may find astrologers generally engaged in predictive astrology; venturing to render guidance in electional branch, but when he would be asked as to how many books he has read on the subject or rather he possesses in his library; the answer shall be obvious.
One may excuse an astrologer claiming specialisation in “Remedial Astrology” if the results do not come, consoling oneself that it may be effect of his Karmas in this & last birth. But how come you can excuse an astrologer who has rendered guidance to an aspirant, who does not have even a single book on electional astrology in his library.
We all understand limitations of knowledge in any field, but that does not authorize one to claim master of different fields, especially in astrology.
--shridharvk , 2, March 2006 (UTC)
It is not surprising that there are no comments / discussions on this topic for the last one month. Astrologers shun, rather fear to talk on this topic for the reasons best known to them.
I invite astrologers to have frank discussion on this topic.
--shridharvk , 4, April 2006 (UTC)
:Why would you expect astrologers to flock to your online debate? I think you should go to an astrological conference, where you will find those who may be interested in talking to you. Aquirata 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most feared topic among astrologers 

message: :::Exactly what I thought when presented with astrology. It makes the exact same anount of sense, note that I actually have said more regarding the workings of astrology than "huh" and that this is actually entirely unnecessary, the results matter... Lundse 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you know nothing about the workings of astrology, something you've made abundantly clear. Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your blind zest to defend astrology, you're missing the point. What Lundse is doing is applying the scientific methodology to astrology, and for this, knoweldge of astrology is irrelevant. For example, you don't need to know thermodynamics, but you can still see that it works each time you drive a car. On the other hand, no controlled experiments has ever shown astrology to work. siddharth 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you disagree with my opinions and the irritating things I told you about eg. hyperdimensional theory I suggest you answer me and tell me what is wrong. As it is you just make personal attacks. And if you do not stop, I wil file a complaint about it since I have had quite enough now. Lundse 09:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's tying you to the computer and forcing you to comment? Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doovinator, I don't understand you're previous statement. Are you supporting Andrews personal attack?! siddharth 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lundse has indeed been passing off opinion for knowledge; that statement I support. Doovinator 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What opinions are these? The ones on scientific validity? I am afraid you do not really seperate understanding astrology and understanding science - I know about the latter and can apply certain methods and understandings to various subjects, including ones I know very little about (hence my insistence on talking about results). I do not know about the methodologies of astrology and noone has yet been able to make any argument as to why I should, they (eg. you and Homer) just claim I do not know what I am talking about. Please note that when I talk about testing, it makes very little sense to attack me for not understanding astrology - you might as well chastice me for not knowing about fishing rods, neither is relevant. Lundse 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's amazing is that you keep defending this absolutely untenable position -- no, you're even proud of your lack of astrological knowledge! Just as astrologers without knowledge of the scientific method cannot properly test the objective validity of astrology, scientists (let alone skeptics or debunkers) cannot objectively validate astrology without astrological knowledge. It is that simple, and the sooner you realize that, the better for everyone. Aquirata 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. One can test eg. whether a car can drive without knowing about engines. And one can test astrological claims if one only knows what those claims are. Certainly, one would need the help of astrologers to find those claims (and probably further on; making out horoscopes, predictions, etc. to test). If I claimed I could see the future, would you need to read all my books before testing it? Or could you just check if what I claimed would happen actually happened? I am amazed that you cannot see this, but I think it explains a lot about your writings the last months (and why you agree with AH's personal attacks). Lundse 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've undone Doovinator's mutilation of Lunse's comments above and put them into a single post. He can feel free to rewrite them so his position is clearer. But in future don't insert comments into the middle of peoples comments, it makes the talk page unreadable. Jefffire 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge of astrology 

message: I've always viewed astrology as a science. Not a "hard" science, like physics (although wander over to particle physics sometime if you think physics is actually a "hard" science), but a "soft" science like psychology or sociology. One can take measurements of the race, income, social standing, etc. of a population, but can't possibly state that little Tameka Jones, whose mother is black and whose father is a Welsh/Asian plumber making $47,000 per year, will therefore grow up to be a veterinarian. Astrology is the same way. One can see that someone has a Gemini sun, Aquarius moon and Leo rising and therefore state that they are likely to be talkative, romantically attracted to intellectual types and drawn to theatrics, but to surmise that they will therefore be a movie star and not an athlete or a housewife or a physicist is a whole different ball of wax. Astrology follows very rigid scientific principles; if you don't think so try to draw and interpret a chart sometime, but the application and interpretation of the geometric patterns formed by the planets as they relate to individual lives is of necessity a fuzzy and imperfect thing. The same rules which apply to musical harmonics apply to astrological interpretation, but to scientifically analyze a clarinet solo, for example, and state the individual notes which lead to a blue mood or a jazzy and excited feeling is a very difficult and imprecise science--though a science it indeed is, see music theory--although absolutely everyone instinctively knows the difference, in their soul and in their bones. Such is astrology as well. Doovinator 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This also makes it testable using statistical methodology. It fails. Jefffire 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of evidence is different from evidence of lack. Your conclusion is called logical fallacy. Ignoring evidence, on the other hand, is evidence of ignorance. Aquirata 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to science. It is different from mathamatics. To begins, lets see some papers from reliable sources to back up your claim of evidence. Nature will suffice. Jefffire 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one paper from Nature and it is highly controversial with no basis in astrology. Piper Almanac 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear me, looks like there is nothing then... Jefffire 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Jupiter has no moons for those refusing to look in the telescope. After all, publications in Nature are a result of random mutations, so one needs to look elsewhere for enlightenment. Aquirata 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you challenging the reliability of Nature? Jefffire 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrology as a science

message: I wanted to make an announcement that I started a much needed astrology wikiproject today in order to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia.  I'm looking for people with some sort of background or expertise in the subject to join the project.  Or just anyone that would be willing to help out.  If you are interested then please check out the project page.  --Chris Brennan 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, Chris - thanks for setting this up! Aquirata 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology Wikiproject 

message: "Personality tests, however, do not test astrology claims because astrology does not claim correlation to them. Also, experiments based on personality tests may be flawed because they lack controls for contextual errors." These sentences (and subsequent) are textbook original research and should be removed. Marskell 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a number of undiscussed major POV, OR or Unreliably sourced claims recently edited into the validity section to make special pleading cases for astrology. They violate WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and WP:V pretty heavily. Jefffire 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NOR

message: A vote is taking place on the deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article which is the main page for the section within this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology. Lumos3 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok...  --Chris Brennan 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology 

message: Aquirata, you reverted the statement "While astrology is a very controversial subject, there is a clear consensus among the scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for its beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary[6]."
That's not POV, it's a true, sourced fact. I am going to reinsert that, But I want to discuss it first. Also, please don't delete sourced statements, without discussing it first like what Doovinator did. That seems like vandalism siddharth 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the wording as it stands is that it tends to "teach the controversy". I prefer the version that srin cites above (but then I would, wouldn't I). Marskell 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Siddharth version is much better. There is a clear scientific consensus and it is dishonest not to present that. Jefffire 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason your wording was POV is that this view must be presented much later in the article. See: Wikipedia:Define and describe, Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. Whether astrology is objectively valid is irrelevant to most astrologers and most clients. What we need as an introduction is a definition of what astrology is. Criticising something you haven't defined makes no sense. It is this same reason that you don't see criticism of science, religion, etc, in the introductory sentences. In fact, the introduction mus t be left to practitioners of astrology, science, religion, etc, because only they know what the subject matter is. Aquirata 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstood the situation. Astrology is "defined" in the main introduction to the article. I put the sentence in the introduction to the objective validity. Also, the sentence I inserted is a fact, not opinion(Do you agree?). Since you obviously misunderstood it, I'm inserting the sentences again. If you have any problems, please discuss it here before making changes. siddharth 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then the mistake is mine. Excuses include lack of time and being on the edge after continual reverts by another editor. Apologies. Aquirata 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro to objective validity

message: To answer, reiterate, and so forth. 
1 a) Zeus' observation that "astrological research" is a misnomer best sums up my last post. We don't/shouldn't include "astrological research"—we include scientific research about astrology. Defined as: work published in a recognized scientific publication, with an obvious impact factor, and/or affiliated with a university etc. If Nature says dogs are born with the desire to not crap in my living room, then I accept the point's inclusion even if owning five puppies tells me it's BS. The place of publication is paramount and ultimately determines whether we can call it scientific. We've waxed lyrical about the scientific method here (myself as guilty as anyone) but perhaps this has missed the point: "scientific" for the purpose of Wikipedia is what the Real World says "scientific" is. In a sense, we trust journals like Nature because a (somewhat) formalized culture of science has developed that says information systems like Wikipedia must trust journals like Nature. Does this comes close to a Hiedeggerian critique? Holy shit again.  
:"Does this..."  - Closer to a Foucaultian observation.  Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud your clarity in reasoning. Let me digest and respond accordingly. Aquirata 00:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When discussing scientific studies on astrology, M and J are correct, Correlations is dubious. That's the way of the world.  However, I think it's acceptable to discuss material from such sources when dealing with the topic of astrology in general (or in the context of certain subtopics) because there is no astrology without astrologers and what they think and discuss.   When I want to know something about believers in alien abduction, I might have to go to dubious sources to find out how certain themes developed and are perpetuated (like blues vs greys). I might want to know how the whole world-ending-in-2012 thing started, and reputable journals and authors of Mayan anthropology or archaeology are not likely to reveal this. Instead I have sniff out from believer sources that this reading of the Mayan calendar can  be traced directly to some cult leader in Oregon.  Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is largely my position. I have no objections whatsoever to Correllation being used as a source for astrologers beliefs or practices. But when it comes to scientific matter, such as validity of the subject or stistical tests, then it is not acceptable. You may use Correllation as a source throughout the article, But not within the section "scientific analysis of astrology".Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Correlation is not so dubious as a source of astrological claims. The fact that it "appears" to bear some resemblence to something scientific is perhaps irrelevant from the scientific POV. In truth Correlation is a very strong source of astrological claims that astrologers would tend to strongly agree with. You can hardly find a better source than this to represent strong astrological beliefs. The other books and articles, which have appeared in OVA supporting astrology also represent the strongest of all astrological claims. Marskell has stated "astrological sources for astrologial claims." This is where you go to find them. Piper Almanac 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are using it as a source for scientific claims. Claiming that there is a correllation between signs and vocation is a scientific claim. Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinserted your edits with a slight rewording to make it clear the sources can't be regarded as scientific. With luck this will be a happy compromise. Jefffire 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the claims of astrology appear to take the form of correlations, and are even presented as correlations. Piper Almanac 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you cannot find reliable scientific sources for astrological claims then that is your problem, not ours. Wikipedia's policies will not be compromised because the best you can do is not good enough. Jefffire 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marskell's long-winded thoughts on sourcing

message: In the number of years that I have been dealing with this topic, I never heard an astrologer called an 'astrolog'.  The only use of this word I've seen is as chart calculation software that ran on IBM computers before Windows.  Can some one fill me in on this name?  Some interesting names for astrologers can be found in the 17th century -- such as Astrologaster.  Maybe a list of historical appellations could be included on the history of astrology page. Zeusnoos 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. I've never heard of it either and I read a lot. Piper Almanac 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally!  Thank you!  --Chris Brennan 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen "astrolog" used for at least 30 years, but not for an astrologer. It referred to a list of aspects, etc. for a month or whatever. Doovinator 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  by the way, astrolog? 

message: "Astromancy" is the same thing as "Astrology," correct?  The Astromancy page states otherwise; someone with more knowledge on this subject should go change it if the two are actually synonymous (it seems that they are).  --172.147.89.38 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astromancy refers to a type of astrology-influenced magic; not really the same thing, as astrology claims no magical component. Doovinator 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astromancy & Astrology -- The Same Thing? 

message: It has been argued that astrology research claims and evidence violate WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence and this has gotten into a dispute over the definition of what is "exceptional". Fortunately, all we need do is read the guidelines, as suggested by Jefffire. Here's the definition point-by-point and how astrology research claims stack up.
Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
*Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. 
**The Mars effect claims are widely known, perhaps even by millions.
*Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media. 
**This is not a recent development but has been ongoing for over 30 years.
*Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. 
**There is no unusual report that anyone has reversed an interest or position.
*Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. 
**These claims are supported by published normal science and statistical research methods using well-established protocols. Knowledge of astrology research claims are essential for the prevailing view in the relevant academic community studying astrology, among which are Bath and Hampton Universities in the UK and Kepler College in the US, plus dozens of academics worldwide who are conducting astrology research or replication, or who are writing about astrology research claims both pro and con. There is also sustained interest among less relevant academic communities, including interested scientists, statisticians, philosophers. These communities and individuals would wish to remain informed of the current research and would seek this information at Wikipedia. There is no claim of conspiracy. 
Astrology research claims comfortably pass all of these WP criteria. Piper Almanac 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent research, Piper - thanks for setting the record straight! Aquirata 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Piper is wrong on each and every count on this one. The belief in the Mar's effect is non-exceptional, but the validity of it would be very much acceptable. Please do not confuse the belief and validity. Jefffire 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptional claims and evidence