Talk:Astrology and astronomy

message: "The two completely separate disciplines as we define them today cannot, in fact, be distinguished, until only the past few hundred years (they split up completely about 1750-1800)."
The premise of this article is not correct, and can be disproven merely with a few examples of how astronomy and astrology were distinguished in ancient thought beginning with Plato, who was aware of Babylonian use of planets and stars for prediction, but who was interested in astronomy as a method of comtemplating cosmic harmony (which is not the same thing as making predictions about persons from a horoscope).
By starting with a broad sweep of history and generalizations rather than clear definitions of astrology and astronomy, the article is misleading and inaccurate.  This does not mean that astronomy wasn't used primarily in the service of astrology (which it was) or that an astronomer could not also be an astrologer (many were, but many were not).  Non-astrologer astronomers included: Eudoxus, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Heraclides, Aristarchus, Geminus, Scylax (friend of Posidonius).  The skeptics and opponents of astrology (such as the Cappadocians) were quick to point out the difference between astrology and astronomy.
I recommend that this article be flagged for rewrite.
--Zeusnoos 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with premise of this article 

message: I added some of my suggested changes to the introduction without touching the opening paragraph (I'll let you duke it out).  Some of this material may be incorporated into the body, which currently has some inaccurate generalizations.  A rewrite should include something about which branches of astrology were accepted in the early modern period (even by hardnose Hobbes!) and which were rejected (and maybe include reasons why). I mean judicial vs natural astrology.  Natural astrology included phases of the moon and affects of cycles of the sun.  Judicial was casting horoscopes and making predictions about nations and individuals.  Horary was revived in the 17th century (particularly by William Lilly).  Patrick Curry wrote an excellent book on this period of history (Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England) and another good source is Ann Geneva's work Astrology and the Seventeenth Century Mind (St. Martin's Press, 1996 or 7?).  She focused much on the political intrigues involving Lilly and his rivals. 
As it stands the definitive split of 1750-1800 is not wrong, but too generalized and gives the impression that astrology and astronomy were considered one and the same up to this time.  This is generally untrue if you study the details Zeusnoos 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the split started much earlier than the 18th century. One could say that Copernicus was the forerunner of what transpired in later centuries. Aquirata 12:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added details to introduction 

message: Astrology and astronomy "are" historically one and the same, or were  historically one and the same? Bwrs (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in lead? 

message: To be honest any useful info in this article should be in history of astronomy or history of astrology. This article seems to overlap with these and only confuse the issue. Currently astronomy and astrology are very widely separated fields : ) so the title of this article is liable to confuse readers.  Sophia 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is to compare the two disciplines. Two separate articles cannot do that. Aquirata 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it will be a short article! Modern astrology is pseudoscience and astronomy is science. In the past they were linked and this should be mentioned in the histories of each subject but there is nothing currently to compare.  Sophia 12:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sophia, if you have the time to check, see what if any info would be lost (is there anything stated in here that doesn't get mentioned in the "history of" articles?). With that taken care of it can be merged. Sub-articles are meant for specific things main articles cannot handle. Marskell 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the merge unless someone can show that a lot of material would get lost. And I do believe two articles can contrast with one another by a small section or paragraph (in many cases). It will have to be shown why this is not so for this subject matter (preferably with reference to some interesting material in this article which there would not be room for in the two others). Lundse 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The public get them mixed up sometimes as they can't spell - that's the only modern comparison there is. Do we need a whole article for that? We wouldn't compare reflexology or reiki with astronomy so why this?  Sophia 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the confusion is conceptual rather than a misspelling. As it stands, the historical divergence section is repetitious and poorly organized.  If cleaned up, I agree that this article should stay, but as a brief, separate topic just to outline historically the interaction of astronomy and astrology, and some of the reasons for the confusion of the two historically and today.  On the other hand, some of the material could be fit in the history of astrology, to perhaps replace the statement:  "Isidore of Seville (d. 636) was one of the first to distinguish between astronomy and astrology."  The distinction was made by many before this time as I have shown in the revised intro to astronomy/astrology.   Making such a distinction doesn't mean later or contemporary people followed it.   The history of astronomy article currently has the link in the first paragraph, but nothing about how the two are confused. On another astrology talk page, someone recently mentioned this article www.iep.utm.edu/a/astr-hel.htm which contains some mention of Greek astronomers who were not astrologers and were critical of it, as were a number of philosophers.  The history is very nuanced. Zeusnoos 14:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a google of "astronomy and astrology" returns lots of hits but they mostly seem to be sites that are very biased one way or the other. . I still contend that the only NPOV way to deal with this is in the history articles of each subject.  Sophia 15:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's still not forget that astronomy comes from astrology, it iss an important point we have to keep in whichever articles will talk about it. → Icez {talk | contrib} 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: In order to create some clarity on the difference between the articles Astronomy, Astrology, History of astronomy, History of astrology and this one, instead of the inconclusive merge proposal, I propose to change the name of this article to something like Common origins of astronomy and astrology or Divergence of astronomy and astrology. Nick Mks 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that.  --Chris Brennan 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support Historical divergence of Astronomy and Astrology as a complementary article to History of astrology and History of Astronomy.  Sophia 11:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support more the Common origins of astronomy and astrology, however I'm perfectly fine with the other one. → Icez {talk | contrib} 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep a short title which describes the main theme . -Vinay Jha 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: What's next, Alchemy and chemistry? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - but you make a very valid analogy - thank you.  Sophia 06:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange article 

message: What's up with the top of the article here? There has to be a way to get the infobox alongside the text.   >-{ Brandonrush }-<  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  top of article 

message: This article has determinism as a defining characteristic of astrology, whereas astronomy acknowledges both order and chance. I think the latter is far from a necessary viewpoint. Laplace, for example:
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
Theat's determinism pur et dur, and Laplace was an astronomer and not an astrologer.
Also for what it's worth, I question that astrologers are necessarily 100% determinist, but that's IMHO, and I didn't do any research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejo13 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing characteristics 

message: This whole section is misleading and factually incorrect. For example
# Astrologers practice their discipline geocentrically [12] and they consider[citation needed] the universe to be harmonious, changeless and static, while astronomers have employed the scientific method to infer that the universe is without a center and is dynamic, expanding outward.[13]
This should be # Most astrologers practice their discipline geocentrically Astrology Terminology Dictionary and they consider the universe to be meaningful and teleological. Astronomers have employed the scientific method to infer that the universe is neither meaningful, nor goal-directed, but subject to the purely mechanical laws of physics and quantum mechanics.
There are a minority of astrologers who practice heliocentric astrology. Moreover, astrologers today do not consider the universe to be changeless and static, nor did they ever. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed that the sphere of the Fixed Stars was a firmament and in that sense changeless, and his views prevailed and were dominant in science thanks largely to Ptolemy (anyone could see that the planets moved, that's the original meaning of the word "planet"). Almost all thinkers believed this until well after the discoveries of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler. Astrologers today are just as well versed in the scientific view of the solar system and the universe as anyone else, and more so than most.
# Astrologers believe that the position of the stars and planets determine an individual's personality and future. 
Most Western Astrologers do not take a deterministic view. The word "determine" should be changed to "influence" if this sentence is retained. Many if not most astrologers would hold that the celestial world is a map or guide to the course of events and the structure of personality, rather than a cause, so neither "determine" nor "influence" is appropriate to them.
#Astronomers study the actual stars and planets, but have found no evidence supporting astrological theories. 
This suggests that astrologers do not study "actual" stars and planets. If so, what do they study? The word "actual" is POV and should be removed. Some astronomers understand astrology, just as most astrologers understand astronomy, or at least the parts of it that do not require PhD's in astrophysics. I would like to know which "astrological theories" there are "no evidence" for.
#Psychologists study personality, and while there are many theories of personality, no mainstream theories in that field are based on astrology.
A number of theories of temperament in particular are based on the Elements, the knowledge of which comes originally from astrology. Jung was strongly influenced by astrology in his views, as was Steiner. No doubt there are others, but I am not an expert in the field of competing psychological theories. Mainstream should be defined and examples given. This is not NPOV either. Alvahir (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting myself a little: the article did it's best (before some modifications of mine), but some anti-astrology tendencies hadn't been cleaned away, and list of differences hadn't a quite clear grip about what motivates astrology nor astronomy. Astrology isn't that deterministic, astronomy doesn't preach anything – it's not a religion – it's a genre under the science umbrella, strictly obeying the rules of science, which prohibits using religion and mysticism in scientific articles. I still think that Template:Totally-disputed can be removed. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Correcting myself: Newton was a religious man, thought not what is ordinarily regarded as christian. He is not a Spinoza kind'a'guy, but his own. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: As of 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting myself a little: the article did it's best (before some modifications of mine), but some anti-astrology tendencies hadn't been cleaned away, and list of differences hadn't a quite clear grip about what motivates astrology nor astronomy. Astrology isn't that deterministic, astronomy doesn't preach anything – it's not a religion – it's a genre under the science umbrella, strictly obeying the rules of science, which prohibits using religion and mysticism in scientific articles. I still think that Template:Totally-disputed can be removed. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is OK

message: The current one is:
# confusing,
# seems to allege some kind of predetermination: "the astronomy was predetermined to become liberated from the evil ;^) yoke of astrology",
Which is in disaccord with the general modern scientific rejection of predetermination ;^). I think that section partially already tell us the truth: someone had to pay the astronomers/astrologers, either some rich guy needing horoscopes for his personal spiritual ease, or some rich guy very interested in navigation. Galileo was an observational astronomer, and didn't contribute to the celestial mechanics at all. The three greatest contributors are:
# Kepler, who was a mystic directed towards pythagorean ideals and a devoted astrologer,
# Newton, who was kind of an early "rationalist", of the renaissance kind, probably not an astrologer but probably a devoted christian,
# Einstein, who was an early 20th century strict scientist having a deterministic religious view, maybe of the Spinoza kind, most probably not an astrologer.
I think that celestial mechanics and heliocentrism has nothing to do with the separation, I think rationalism and positivism are the main driving forces behind the separation, especially modern physics, concentrating on atom theory and the four forces of nature. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting myself: Newton was a religious man, thought not what is ordinarily regarded as christian. He is not a Spinoza kind'a'guy, but his own. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another historical divergence

message: Historical divergence have been rewritten, readers are welcome to criticise and improve, but foremost I wished to remove the reason for the rewriting request on that section, so if You deem the section to be acceptable, and foremost: neutral in point of view, I would like You to delete the template, if it is justified. ("You" equals "any passerby"). Said: Rursus ☻ 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I've rewritten

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Astrology and astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://archive.is/Sfvw to http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Astrology and astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007224627/http://library.thinkquest.org/5014/glossary.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/5014/glossary.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html
* Removed the dead link and added a correct link https://joshiastrology.com/astrology-and-horoscope-readings/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002082033/http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/public_offerings/features/Levels%20of%20Reality%20in%20Astrology.htm to http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/public_offerings/features/Levels%20of%20Reality%20in%20Astrology.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

message: — Assignment last updated by Ohuqq (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

message: Relationship 2409:408A:8DB1:8F24:0:0:6109:A70A (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage or relationship