Talk:Astrology/Archive 8

message: All of this petty bickering is really counterproductive guys.  Could both sides give it a rest already?  --Chris Brennan 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys cannot agree on a version and insist on continuing this dispute, please take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and maybe go through some of those steps (like RfC or RfM). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some experience in dispute resolution. When the objectives and motivations of the sides are so diverse, no wishful thinking, mediation or arbitration will provide long-term remedy to the situation. The only real solution is to 'talk things out', as gently under the circumstances as possible, which is what we've been doing for some time now. Things have definitely improved, but there is still a long way to go. Aquirata 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bickering 

message: Per request at WP:RFPP.  Deathphoenix's comments are spot on.  Hopefully consensus can be reached soon.  -- Samir   धर्म 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timing of this is unfortunate as it froze a number of POV changes by Siddharth not discussed here prior to making the changes. Now we have to contend with those on top of the usual disagreements. Aquirata 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think they are POV, and I think they are constructive to the article. Can you please tell me which parts you think are POV? I did reference most of my additions. Also, it's my personal opinion, that some discussions here degrade rapidly into bickering and that's why I applied my interpretation of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and made the edits. Still, I apologize and I will discuss any future edits I make. siddharth 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding BOLD and IAR, jumping in with many changes without discussion when there is an ongoing effort to come to a reasonable wording acceptable to all shows lack of respect for other editors. This is one of the sore points of editing this article. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Aquirata 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something which most editors here are guilty of then, including you. Jefffire 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide examples of this behaviour when making references to it. Otherwise, it is just a baseless accusation. Aquirata 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I am listing current points of contention in order for us to agree on them and get the astrology page back to non-protected status.
#Starting point: It has been stated that the BorgQueen version of the page reflected more or less consensus, and so this should be the starting point of further discussions. This version also has the advantage of being contemporaneous with the admins stepping on stage, which by definition should automatically become the consensus version. However, not all editors have shown support for this position.
#Categorization: Including the page in categories 'pseudoscience' and 'protoscience' have both been questioned. This was the only point of major disagreement at the time of the BorgQueen version. While personally I support the 'protoscience' category, the only possible consensus I see here is the removal of both.
#Proposed changes: No strong opinions have been expressed here to my knowledge. We obviously will need to discuss changes proposed by Siddharth, possibly without his involvement.
Are there any other major disagreements on the page? If so, please list them here. Either way, please indicate your preference regarding the above so we can move forward towards reaching consensus. Aquirata 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with the removal of category pseudoscience, for the numerous reasons list above. It is verified, it is relevent and it is accurate. Jefffire 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points above and disagree with the comment above. Pseudoscience with regard to astrology has not been "verified" since it is not a valid hypothesis, it is irrelevant because verification is in the results regardless of political stripe or labels, and it is inaccurate because there are numerous good tests of astrological hypotheses that have been scientifically verified. I would agree to 'protoscience' both historically and today. Astrology is the mother of many scientific and mathematical disciplines and continues to contribute to such areas as contemporary Jungian psychology. Lacking a theory in the modern scientific sense does not exclude it from scientific statistical study in the postmodern world. Piper Almanac 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I take it the first and third points are accepted by most editors active here. That leaves the categorization issue to resolve before the page can be unprotected. We have two squarely opposing views. Any proposals on how to achieve consensus on this? Aquirata 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone want to get back to editing the article? Looks like most prefer talking to action here. Aquirata 10:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection needs to stay for now. Judging from your responses in other sections you will immeadiately attempt to remove categories again. Jefffire 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins will decide how long protection is needed. The point is that all positions have to be articulated, and an attempt must be made to reach consensus. I have made several attempts but don't see Marskell or you doing the same. Aquirata 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of contention 

message: :::::Chris: How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century? Perhaps I'm ignorant of history but am not aware of any such fact. I have no problem with presenting a scientific viewpoint of astrology, but take exception to categorizing astrology as pseudoscience. Not because it personally offends me (as I have explained a few times before), but most importantly, in the context of WP, because it is a non-neutral term. No need to resort to personal attacks and insinuations with respect to the OVA article. If you can only think in terms of cause-and-effect, then this will bias your judgment. You may wish us away from this article, but the simple fact is that only constructive effort will take this matter further. Just like you are stuck with us, we are stuck with you and others on this page. So what? We have no other choice than to work through our difficulties. Which is why I started the 'Points of contention' section. Posts within have been scarce so far, so it may take some time to dig ourselves out of this hole. Aquirata 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century?"   Is this a joke?  Surely you know what I mean when I refer to Ptolemy's causal model of astrology?  --Chris Brennan 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem.   --Chris Brennan 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Chris, Ahem yourself. Please answer my question before asking one from me. Aquirata 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Way to sidestep responsibility for making a stupid statement Aquirata.  --Chris Brennan 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, Not at all. Can you please answer my question: How did Ptolemy's model become obsolete by the 18th century? If you cannot, I'll have to assume your statement ("the unified causal model that was put forward by Ptolemy in the 2nd century and then followed after his time became obsolete by the 18th century") was in error. Aquirata 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piper, would you please talk some sense into this guy?  --Chris Brennan 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, Can you not recognize a genuine inquiry when you see one? Why are you sidestepping rather than answering the question? Aquirata 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sophistry is getting ridiculous.  Ok, here.  To make a long story short, in Ptolemy's model where he adapted Aristotelian natural philosophy to astrology and astronomy the Earth lies at the center of the universe and there is a series of concentric crystalline spheres which the planets revolve on, while also moving in their epicycles in order to explain the phenomena of retrogradation.  His explanation for astrology was that the planets themselves literally cause change in the sublunar world by being productive of certain properties of heat and moisture which are transmitted to the four elements thus effecting the animate and inanimate objects composed of these elements in the sublunar world.  The planets don't signify, act as omens, or simply correlate with anything, they literally cause the elements and the weather to change which is supposed to affect everything on Earth.  Jupiter isn't an omen or representative of some sort of archetype in this system, it is literally productive of heat and slightly of moisture:   "The star of Zeus has an active [part] of its power that is temperate, between (as is also the case with its motion) what is cooling in accordance with Kronos and what is burning in accordance with Ares; for, it warms and moistens at the same time, and because its warming [part] is the greater beneath the underlying spheres, it becomes productive of fertile winds." (trans. Schmidt, 1994)    You said "How did Ptolemy's model became obsolete by the 18th century? Perhaps I'm ignorant of history but am not aware of any such fact."   Seriously?  I mean, come on man.  --Chris Brennan 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Both to some extent, although we are speaking specifically about Ptolemy's causal model of astrology.  Ptolemy adapted the Aristotelian cosmological model to astrology and based his causal model of astrology largely upon it.  It was not long after that cosmological model went down the tube that Ptolemy's causal model of astrology started to be recognized as defunct as well, although the two are not entirely reliant upon one another.  His causal model did linger on a bit, for example in the work of Kepler, but it is a completely absurd notion at this point in time.  You would be the only astrologer that I have ever met who would even entertain the idea of Ptolemy's causal model as still being viable in this day and age.    --Chris Brennan 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Aristotelian cosmology was replaced by the Copernican one as a simpler and better explanation, but that didn't happen in the 18th century. On the other hand, a causal model of astrology has never become obsolete to my knowledge. If you don't take Ptolemy's text quite so literally and allow for historical context, he might as well have spoken of electromagnetic radiation when using 'heat' and 'moisture' in his descriptions. This is exactly what Dr Seymour proposes. That he relied on the best available cosmological model at the time which became obsolote by now is a fact, but that doesn't diminish his other ideas. The four elements are very noticebale in people in the form of temperament - even today. Aquirata 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha.  --Chris Brennan 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're on record that Copernicus replaced Aristotle? LOL. Marskell 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid so. :) Aquirata 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aristotle's concept of causes is different than what is accepted today in science. One could say that to modern science, with the exception of "efficient cause," they are "obsolete". Ptolemy adapted astrology to the Aristotelian philosophy, as distinct from the earlier models of Babylonian omens and correlations. This Aristotelian view became "obsolete" much sooner than you might think. By the third century Plotinus (Are the Stars Causes?) argued, in agreement with his contemporaries, that the planets are "indicators" and not the direct cause of all that happens. This was long before Copernicus or Kepler and the 18th century. I'd be surprized if Kepler was Aristotelian in this regard, if you can provide a citation. I believe, that for most of its considerable history astrologers have been confortable with empirical observation without the notion of causality. It is modern scientists who seem to care about this, not astrologers. Piper Almanac 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, based on the above statement, I kind of doubt that you have read enough astrological texts from the time period that we are talking about in order to be able to really substantiate your claims about the views of astrologers regarding causality.  Those who have, namely most historians of astrology, don't really seem to share your opinion here.  Plotinus is irrelevant if the vast majority of astrologers are following Ptolemy in his techniques and his rationale all the way until the end of the Renaissance.  We can even test this.  You get together all of the quotes from astrologers during that time period who are citing Plotinus, and I will get together quotes from all of those who are citing and drawing on Ptolemy, and we will see who comes out with more in the end.  It would, hypothetically, be a pretty open and shut case if you were right.  Sadly, you would be hard pressed to find such widespread citations to back up your assertions.  Here is the 'surprising' quote from Kepler the you requested by the way:  Our deduction of the various actions, number and strength of the planets is different from, but not at odds with, Aristotle's [method of deducing] his four elements from the four qualities.  All variation is due to contriety, the first variation being due to the first contriety [and so on].  In his Metaphysics, Aristotle, wishing to philosophize on a higher and more general level than geometry, accepted as the first contriety that which exists between the same and the other.  To me it seems that diversity in things is created from nowhere other than matter, or from occasions caused by matter, and where there is matter there is geometry.  Thus, what Aristotle called the first contriety is without any middle [element], and in such a way that while other was to Aristotle one term, we break it up into more or less, i. e., two terms.  Now, since geometry has offered an example to the creation of the whole world, this geometrical contriety is not improperly concurring in the decoration of the world which consists in the diverse forces of the planets.   ... Consequently, they [the stars] impart to us qualities of an instrumental character, namely two- according to the number of two natural things, to wit: - (1) moistening power in order to render matter manageable; (2) heating power to support life and motion. (Kepler, Concerning the More Certain Fundamentals of Astrology, , Thesis 20, 21)   Shocking, right Piper?  --Chris Brennan 23:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm quite familiar with Schmidt's hypothesis about the original conceptualization of Hellenistic astrology as I live and work with him at Project Hindsight.  However, your opinions on Kepler and on the practice of astrologers after Ptolemy are largely unsupported by contemporary research that has been done both by those in the astrological community and those in the academic community over the past 20 years or so.  I suspect that the reason for this is that, as in the case with Kepler, you simply haven't read the works of these authors and you are just making assumptions about their positions and about the history of astrology in general.  That makes for a pretty boring discussion, and I'm kind of done with it at this point.  I just wanted to get the astrology article unblocked so that I could resume editing of it, but it appears like that isn't going to happen anytime soon since you guys keep stonewalling this entire process because both of you are always right and the rest of the world is always wrong.  That is a shame.  --Chris Brennan 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just offering food for thought. What do you propose to get the article unblocked? Piper Almanac 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first step would be for you two to stop insisting that the psuedoscience banner and categorization must be removed.  I don't like that classification any more than you guys, and I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a necessary label at this point in time in our society.  Maybe someone will change that one day, I don't know.  But at this point we need to accept that astrology is a fringe study that does not have widespread currency in scientific and academic circles and we need to act accordingly here on Wikipedia.  Personally, I think that we should be directing our energy towards building up the astrology articles on Wikipedia and raising the standard of research in them so that people will actually get a better idea of what astrology is and all of the technical, theoretical and philosophical complexities underlying the subject.  If you really want to get rid of the stigma of psuedoscience attached to astrology then you have to start from the ground up by educating astrologers so that perhaps they will be able to redeem the subject in the public eye one day.  Simply trying to get rid of the psuedoscience label would only be a temporary cosmetic solution that really does nothing to address the deeper problems.  So yeah, lets just let that one go and move on to more important things.  --Chris Brennan 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemy 

message: Use the preceding "how's this?" text and both the pseudoscience and protoscience categories.
*Piper Almanac 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree - let's unlock

message: *Sorry to ruin the party, but I believe the larger issues of attitude, motivation and cooperation haven't been addressed. We can all pretend to agree to a compromise solution, but, without dealing with the underlying dynamics, things will end up where we started. I suggest we take it to arbitration. Aquirata 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't agree

message: Maybe this info I am going to propose would better belong in the History of astrology article, but it seems that most if not all archaeoastronomical sites were built for these cultures to express their 'cosmic admiration' or 'cosmic awe' for their God(s), so possibly these sites have much more astrological significance than people (i.e. modern, highly skeptical scientists) give them credit for.  Perhaps we should include more about the astrological significance of these amazing structures in this article, as it is highly significant information in both the history of astrology AND astronomy.  For instance, we know that many archaeoastronomical sites are astronomically amazing and significant in that they uncannily line up with the cycles of the sun, moon, and planets, but WHY would these cultures go through the laborious process of building these sites if they didn't attach any astrological and/or spiritual significance to them?  Thank you for your time and suggestions and let us keep working together to IMPROVE this article rather than continuing to tear it apart.  --172.150.63.12 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. The trouble of course is properly attributing the evidence that these sites were used for. While it is obvious to the inquiring mind that all these sites were astrological or spiritual in nature, modern terminology separated astrology and astronomy into two disciplines, elevating one of them to the scientific pedestal. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to call the study of these ancient spiritual sites Archaeoastronomy, but that's our current state of affairs. The fact that these sites have spiritual significance and therefore they were astrological sites is only mentioned in passing (two sentences). This is simply indicative of current times, when details (parts) are more important than meaning (the whole). Aquirata 09:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes sense. Researchers like Robin Heath are very knowledgeable in the astrological value of these sites and publish in astrological journals. Piper Almanac 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Properly attributing the evidence" often means properly attributing the people involved. It's endlessly fascinating to conjecture, but I think in a lot of cases we won't ever know the true spiritual intent behind a lot of monuments. Stonehenge, for instance, is often mis-labelled Druidic Celtic, but it's actually pre-Celtic. We don't really know who built it. Maybe it was "astrological" or merely "pagan" (is one necessarily the other?). I would guess (imagine) that they had a relatively advanced calendar they wanted to codify and no doubt they invested the monument with other religious significance. "Cosmic awe" seems right enough. Just one example. Marskell 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose one of the main reasons I suggested that a section be added on the astrological/spiritual portion of archaeoastronomy is that the main astrology article is simply TOO SHORT.  Compared to the Tarot article and quite a few other occult topic articles which are FAR more extensive, the astrology article is just WAAAY too short given the age and complexity of astrology and the many traditions/subfields associated with it.  There are many articles here on Wikipedia that are related to astrology (just look in Category:Astrology or Category:Astrological factors), but it seems that the main article is sorely lacking for a field of study as amazingly ancient as astrology.  --172.148.82.207 02:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Obvious 'Astrological Significance' of [[Archaeoastronomy]] 

message: Can we please try to insert a ref once, name it, and then refer to it when re-using it? See 6 and 7. Marskell 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to give me more time between attacks so that a quality job can be done. Aquirata 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Piper, I'm glad you like the work on the page. Who are you referring to with "both"? Aquirata 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabey you should have seen it coming? ;) Jefffire 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's occured to me that I didn't need to be glib responding to Piper here (a by-product of too much time spent on this). Sorry, and thank-you for your kudos Piper. Marskell 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya, so what's significant about that? The sun does that every day. Mercury only goes retro three times a year. Doovinator 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: First, why does this article include references such as "Nick Campion's Online Astrology Resource"[] for claims on science? From what I read, doesn't it violate wikipedia's policy on credible sources, as found in WP:Reliable sources? The policy says that we should use reliable published sources, and I think many links to external sites which are referenced in this article are not reliable or published Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can study anything whatsoever. Just because somebody is studying something, it doesn't follow that the topic is worthy or valid. That astrology is considered science by some astrologers is a fact, look up the refs. Aquirata 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Re favourable or not, that's your impression. If anything can be improved, then please point it out specifically. Aquirata 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstood what I said. In short, what I wanted to convey is, we should change astrology is the study of the correlation of those objects with earthly affairs. to astrology is the study of the supposed correlation of those objects with earthly affairs.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what we had before but Aquirata keeps getting rid of it.  --Chris Brennan 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source that statement? Aquirata 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Yawn* --Chris Brennan 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the two main English dictionaries? Actually, don't answer that. The tortured logic will probably upset my tummy. Marskell 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out already, they do not support the description given in the article. Then again, their definition is blatantly wrong, but that's just my view (supported by the vast majority of astrologers). I think a paraphrase of our first sentence should be given here to avoid self-contradiction. "Supposed correlation" certainly doesn't do it for me, and it cannot be sourced. Aquirata 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "supposed" is used in both. That's what you wanted sourced, that's what you got. Marskell 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't be serious. The statement 'as is' cannot be backed up by the sources. Piecemeal sourcing is never acceptable. Aquirata 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AUTOMATED MARSKELLBOT: The word "supposed" is used in both. That's what you wanted sourced, that's what you got. Marskell 08:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on References, statements and some comments 

message: Why  say "many scientists" and not the "scientific community"? in Critics, including many scientists, consider it a pseudoscience. Aquirata says only this can be sourced as discussed before. Was this discussed before (I can't find it in the archives)? Besides, I think it can be sourced. This link which is already present, from the The National Science Foundation can be used a as a source for that statement.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 10:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The .gov link is as large an umbrella to describe scientific opinion as you'll find. Marskell 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make a long story short, only a comprehensive opinion survey of the scientific community will support your statement. The NSF is funding the scientific community but cannot be said to represent their collective opinion, which is non-existent. The fact is that most scientists don't have an opinion on astrology. The vocal minority within the scientific community appears to believe it's 'pseudoscience'. They use every opportunity to further their political interests by denigrating a discipline they haven't studied or practiced and therefore don't understand. Some have called these people 'pseudo-skeptics' because they are 1) extremely biased therefore cannot be called skeptics, and 2) using pseudoscientific practices to label astrology (i.e. they come to conclusions without applying the scientific method). So 'many scientists' can be supported and reflects the actual state of affairs; 'scientific community' cannot be supported and distorts facts. Aquirata 11:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marskell, we've been through this and you have come to the same conclusion or at least accepted this as a workable compromise from your vantage point. Are you proposing to go back and battle this out once again? Aquirata 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept "many scientists" ahead of reverting, yes, though I thought the compomise wording was "the scientific community, where it has commented". What's hard here is that your analysis basically excludes any source for the claim. Policy doesn't ask us for "a comprehensive opinion survey of the scientific community" and I've never seen the bar set like this on other pages. No one is asking you for such to source astrological claims. Marskell 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most opinions or claims by astrologers are qualified in the article. What I object to is the usage of "the scientific community" in a blanket statement. The scientific community as a whole is not as ignorant as that sentence would imply. I am actually arguing for the scientific side here if you noticed. I think it's quite degrading to the scientists to say that virtually every one of them states astrology is pseudoscience due to the points I have made above. 
"The scientific community, where it has commented" is fine; "many scientists" is essentially the same but simpler. Aquirata 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why "many scientists" and not "scientific community"?

message: Don't forget the Mars-Vesta cycle, the Moon Node periodicity, and the Jupiter-Saturn cycle regarding business & the stock market.  But I'll defer to Bill Meridian, Grace Morris, & Norm Winski regarding Financial Astrology.  Andrew Homer 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon Node & Mars-Vesta