Talk:Astrology/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Western astrology tradition

I reverted this edit [1]. We should not suggest that only WESTERN astrological traditions have been rejected by the scientific community. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. East vs. West is just a matter of detail, it is the fundamental principles of astrology that are rejected along with everything that follows them. Sædon^talk 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It's also WP:OR as it isn't in the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll return to this point later, but for the moment I'm going to focus on the new Brockbank source.--Other Choices (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymology section

I wonder what to do with the last two paragraphs in this section. They are tagged with multiple issues, and I wonder why we need to explain things like the seven classical planets, the IAU definition of planets and "cuneiform depictions for the determinative MUL (star)..."(huh??).. in what is supposed to be simply the etymology of "astrology". MakeSense64 (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support deleting everything in that section but a short etymology from the Greek and, perhaps, a brief recap of how astronomy diverged from astrology to become a real science. The rest is unnecessary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Have deleted it. Some properly sourced material can be added if it pertains directly to the etymology. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Brockbank on astrological methodology and empirical science

Per FormerIP's question above, I offer some quotations from the first chapter of Brockbank's dissertation (pp. 21-56), titled "Astrology and the Empirical":

• p. 23: It is the argument of this thesis that the scientific methodology of empirical experiments is an inappropriate methodology with which to examine astrology.
  
• p. 25: The argument of the scientific researchers, that empirical tests are the criteria that should be used to determine which claims to take seriously and which claims to reject, has created a significant problem for astrologers and astrology because, so far, insufficient empirical evidence has been found to support any astrological techniques or statements, so the logical conclusion is that all astrological statements are statements of belief rather than truth, and should be rejected.
  
• p. 27: This then is the problem posed by the scientific researcher: astrology appears to “work” when astrologers practise, but “working” has not been repeated under controlled conditions; astrological literature makes many claims for astrological techniques but no empirical evidence has been found to support any of them; these techniques are often contradictory but without empirical evidence one has no methodology to determine which techniques are correct.
  
• p. 30: There are twelve houses, twelve signs, a minimum of seven planets and no limit to the number of other points, real, constructed or hypothetical, that astrologers might use in their practice. Each of these have hundreds of different meanings, making millions of combinations (see Dean 1977: 34-35). It is inconceivable that all of these techniques, rules and procedures could be grounded in the empirical.
  
• pp. 30-1: Indeed, it is difficult to conceive how empirical evidence could ever be thought to underlie the techniques and rules used in extant astrological practice.
  
• pp. 35-6: To argue that judicial astrology – making an astrological judgment - requires natural astrological laws supported by empirical evidence is to make a category error. Many scholars from a variety of different fields have made a similar point for their own disciplines. These scholars are often concerned that the methodology of science is being imposed on their own subject, even though that subject has its own methodology.
  
• pp. 37-8: In chapter four we will provide a detailed characterisation of astrological methodology and empirical data will form no part of it. For the moment it will be sufficient to point out that the empirical approach, by itself, cannot provide a methodology for making astrological judgments.
  
• p. 43: Indeed, it is difficult to see how astrological methodology could ever be empirically based.
  
• p. 45: One cannot use empirical experiments, for example, to determine whether a planet is more beneficial in a birth chart when it is both retrograde and angular, compared to when it is neither, because any attempt to create such a law will have to assume that all other factors are equal, but all other factors will not be equal. The planet may be of the sect or it may not, it might be in its own domicile or it might not, or it might receive a difficult aspect from a malefic or it might a positive aspect from a benefic or a positive aspect from a malefic and a difficult aspect from a benefic, or both, and it might be combust or not. One would be setting oneself a task which could only be achieved, to use Oakeshott‟s description, in a world of fantasy.
• p. 47: From the 1950s through to the 1980s many leading British astrologers were keen to embark on an empirical investigation which would show the efficacy of astrology and it became a central purpose of the Astrological Association of Great Britain.
• pp. 47-8: However, as a greater understanding of what was required by science was taken on board, leading to more sophisticated tests, it became apparent that nothing had been found to support any of the astrological techniques used by astrologers.
• p. 53: By subscribing to the empirical astrologers have done their practice an injustice. It has been too easy for people to dismiss the practice of astrology because the methodology actually used has apparent internal inconsistencies and is not based on an empirical approach, while astrological techniques have not been supported by empirical research. However, to consider astrology as a practice relying on empirical evidence is a mistake because the methodology is not meant to be, and cannot be, empirically based, while the purpose of astrology is not to produce results which can be confirmed by empirical tests. What a scholarly approach to astrology requires is an examination of the methodology of astrology in order to determine what that methodology achieves and what it relies upon.

--Other Choices (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. So Brockbank essentially argues that astrology is too complex to be empirically based. Leaving aside the merits of that argument, are there any other sources that make a similar claim? Formerip (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This would seem necessary per WP:REDFLAG. Sædon^talk 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing this longer list of quotes from Brockbank a few things become clear. Basically he is listing the same criticisms of astrology that we give in the "scientific appraisal" section, but we already have better quality sources in that section so there is no reason to use this source instead. Then he formulates his opinion that astrology cannot be empirically based, and instead formulates the hypothesis that astrology is a form of divination based on communication with some benevolent non-human entity somewhere up in the cosmos, but somehow it never yields any empirically measurable results (which of course begs the question why anyone would waste his time on it if that is the case). This is thus original research by Brockbank, and WP is not a publisher of OR. Are there any indications that "Western astrologers" have accepted Brockbank's thesis as their core principle already?

Question to @OC: why all these gymnastics to somehow try to include Brockbank's thesis in this article? It's not as if we don't have more established sources to write the article about astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm I suppose the Carlson experiment was original research, too. --Other Choices (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges comparison. We have numerous independent and high quality sources covering the Carlson study. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. Yes, it "was". Everything is original research initially and then it either gets accepted or rejected based on peer review and criticism and/or testing. Has that already happened with Brockbank's ideas? He himself presents it as a "hypothesis". Since when does WP report on new hypotheses that have not received much (if any) comments, cites or reviews yet? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC:Please see WP:NPOV, especially the parts about WP:WEIGHT. We assign weight to an idea in proportion to its prominence in relaible sources. A dissertation that has not been discussed elsewhere in the scholarly literature has a very low prominence. Another way of putting it is that the dissertation has had little, if any, impact on the scholarly discussion on the topic. Hypotheses and conclusions in doctoral dissertations rarely do have much of an impact on scholarly discussion until they are published in peer-reviewed journals or books. The more than 500 articles and ten or so books I've written, translated or prepared for publication contained, lets say, about 20,000 references, only a handful have been to dissertations. Even then, the dissertations were used for data-mining, and not for hypotheses and conclusions. Since the Brockback dissertation is relative fresh, the author may in the future decide to publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed publication, and it may become part fo the scholarly debate on the topic. But as of now, it has had no perceptible impact, and thus should be assigned little, if any, weight here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, IRWolfie. My point is that Ph.D dissertaions are by definition original research, as is any peer-reviewed academic study including the Carlson experiment. A completed and published Ph.D dissertation is a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

@Saedon, thank you for bringing up WP:REDFLAG; clearly I'll have to re-word the first sentence of my proposed addition to say something like, " Many astrologers are attached to an empirical approach to astrology, but recently some scholars and astrologers have argued that astrological methodology does not rely on empirical science." I would source this with Brockbank, and some of his six sources (which include three articles from Correlation -- permissible for the views of astrologers, if I understand correctly); his best source is Willis and Curry, Astrology, Science, and Culture: Pulling Down the Moon (2004), reviewed here.

@MakeSense64 and DV, please understand that I'm not proposing mentioning Brockbank's new "responsive cosmos" hypothesis at all, so I don't think the "weight" issue applies here. Rather, I want to use his discussion of the theoretical underpinning of astrology, which usefully summarizes other sources.--Other Choices (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@OC. Since you have said that Brockbank covers only Western astrology, that material would find a better place in Western astrology, where there is a section about "Core principles" (which seems to have stopped in the 9th century). While we do have brief sections about the main astrology traditions in the article here, this is not the place to add anything more than broad outlines, with details going into the standalone articles we have for each of these traditions. We have to keep due weight into account, and nothing you have cited from his thesis so far appears weighty enough to be included here. While PhD theses may be reliable sources, a lot of PhD theses start gathering dust as soon as they are printed/published. I continue to wonder why you are so intent on using this source, while virtually everybody is telling you that we cannot put much weight on such a recent dissertation. And now you are talking about bringing in three sources from "Correlation"..What do we need "the views of the astrologers" for? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OC, if you can demonstrate that Brockbank's opinion is a prominent one among astrologers then it may merit a mention in the article. But the onus is on you to show that using quality sources. An opinion found in a single PhD dissertation doesn't cut it on its own. Formerip (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@MakeSense64, your suggestion to add Brockbank's discussion of the theoretical underpinning of western astrology to the western astrology article makes sense, but of course I'll have to wait to confirm that his dissertation has been accepted. If you would like to discuss my motivation for wanting to use Brockbank, you're welcome to bring up the issue on my talk page.

@Formerip, Ph.D dissertations generally summarize other sources as part of a broad overview of the subject that they are dealing with. In this particular case, Brockbank summarizes theoretical views that are prominent among astrologers (even though he doesn't share many of these views), and there are very few reliable sources that go into this area.--Other Choices (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be the incorrect assumption that Wiki does not publish original research (OR). This is only for wiki editors - we cannot include our OR, but this does not apply to external sources. Terry Macro (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OC, Brockbank may, and undoubtedly does, summarise other sources in his dissertation. The only relevant question (for me, at least) is whether any of those sources, or any reliable sources that he doesn't summarise, share his particular thesis regarding the essential non-empirical character of astrology. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see my reply to Saedon above; he gives six sources for this view in Chapter 1 of his dissertation.--Other Choices (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have access to those sources? What do they say? Formerip (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have easy access to them, but of course I'll have to track them down if I want to add this point to an article. These sources were the references for the quotes from Brockbank that I included above.--Other Choices (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Status as a science in India

I had moved the paragraph about astrology's status in India to the "scientific appraisal" section and Dominus Vobisdu reverted it: [2].
I still think this paragraph better belongs where I had put it, because if the "scientific appraisal" of astrology is different in India then we should mention it there, not in the "cultural influence" section where it appears out of place. Personally, I don't agree with the Indian view upheld by their high court, but we are supposed to be neutral. This has relevance for the scientific status of astrology, but I do not think it deserves more weight than it gets right now. If we agree that this needs to be in the article, then all we need to do is find concensus where to best put it. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The text is not about the scientific treatment but the treatment by the indian government. What is science isn't decided by the courts. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't fit so well in the "cultural influence" section, or maybe we need to rephrase it. Politicians do not decide what is science. But in a country where a clear majority of the voters believes in astrology there is no incentive for the politicians to talk or rule against astrology. Are there any sources documenting the opposition there was to this ruling in India? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The text you moved has the opposition from scientists. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Vedic astrology -- critically examined"

I proposed the following external link for addition to the Hindu astrology article: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied". As it contains an extended historical comparison between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs with a discussion of the zodiac's importation to India from Greece, I would like to suggest it for addition to this article as well.--Other Choices (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, self/vanity published, etc. Only good for expressing the author's opinion, assuming the author's opinion is notable which it is not. Uses Yahoo groups as references? Lol. Typifies what could charitably be described as a colonial attitude held by western astrologers towards eastern astrology. I found this passage to be particularly rich, given the behavior of astrology activists on Wikipedia:

"Unfortunately, some <Vedic astrologers> are not willing or able to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression, tell their opponents that they have no competence at all, ridicule them, or accuse them of telling lies or wanting to destroy Hindu culture."

So, no, not acceptable here or at Hindu astrology. Skinwalker (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that nothing on Astrology websites will be found reliable here. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Other Choices. Bottom-feeding with regard to sources is unlikely to produce anything of encyclopedic value. Please start exploring high quality sources from the real academic world and give up relying on low quality in-universe sources, at least in your role as a WP editor (what you do in other aspects of your life is your own business). In-universe sources are basically worthless to anyone outside of the astrological community, including to us here on WP. They can only be used as supplemental sources when the material they contain is discussed by real-world scholars in reliable real-world publications. To use them directly would amount to original research and synthesis.

Furthermore, the "expertise" of astrologers is recognized by no one outside of the astrological community. They cannot be relied upon for even basic information about astrology itself. Any dork can call themself an expert in astrology and publish articles or books or set up a website. Without real-world scholarly review, there's no way for us to tell the difference between dorks and experts. Just because a publication like Correlations presents itself as an academic journal does not mean that it is. Even works by recognized academic experts like Curry, Tarnas and Campion are worth very little without real-world scholarly review. Lots of real-world scholars disgorge unmitigated blither when the peer-review "camera" is turned off, even Nobel prize winners like Linus Pauling and William Shockley.

Also, even real-world sources vary greatly in reliability and utility, with uncited doctoral dissertations ranking far, far lower on the list than peer-reviewed articles and books that have been widely cited. I understand that reliable sources on astrology are hard to come by, but this does not mean that we should relax our standards to include unreliable in-universe sources and lower-quality real-world sources.

As I've said before, information that cannot be found in high-quality real-world sources probably shouldn't be mentioned in articles in WP. There are other venues for that, like Astrowiki, which is aimed at an in-universe audience.

If you want to be a productive WP editor, aim high as far as sourcing is concerned. Learn to find and read real-world scholarly sources. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is not likely to yield anything of encyclopedic value as far as WP is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Skinwalker, thank you for the polite tone of your comments, but there appears to be a bit of confusion here. You may have misread both my initial post and the source in question, as follows:

• I proposed this source as an external link. Per WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered. Accordingly, I brought up this link for consideration.
• The author of this source, Dieter Koch, is not "any dork" (as Dominus Vobisdu implies), but rather he holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Sanskrit, and Classical Greek, making him (perhaps uniquely) qualified to discuss the subject matter of his article. The content of the article is taken from the upcoming third edition of his book. As you mention, the book is self-published, which of course disqualifies it as a reliable source, but not as an external link.
• The author's use of yahoogroups as a reference was judiciously done, if you examine exactly what he was referring to in the article. (He cited yahoogroups in three footnotes out of a total of 50 in the entire article.) Your association of his use of yahoogroups with a "colonial attitude" is simply groundless, in light of the text at note 12a where he cites yahoogroups in association with a Hindu scholar's attempts to reform Hindu astrology. Koch's point here is that this discussion is taking place, and he cites yahoogroups to show the reader WHERE this discussion is taking place.
• If I understand you correctly, your mention of Koch's reference to those who are unable "to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression" is not meant as a reason to reject this proposed external link.

@DV, you also appear to misunderstand my proposal to add an external link to the article. In addition, your incivil tone detracts from the intellectual content of what you were trying to say. To quote from WP:CIVIL: "Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully." Other Choices (talk)

See WP:ELNO: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

It looks like unverified research to me (aka, ramblings). TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I wouldn't characterize his article as "ramblings," and your phrase "unverifIED research" is different from WP:ELNO's "unverifiABLE research." His article is extensively footnoted, which of course provides for verifiability.--Other Choices (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The external links section on this article has often become a waste dump in the past, so now it simply has a general link to Open Directory Project. If you try to edit the "External links" section you will instantly see that it has a "NoMoreLinks" warning. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"astronomical phenomena predict or cause events in the human world"

Recently the first sentence of the lede was changed from "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" to "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that astronomical phenomena predict or cause events in the human world." I just reverted it for the second time, and I won't touch it again (if somebody re-reverts) to avoid edit warring. I'm going to have my say right here and let other editors do what they will with it.
I don't think this is a good change for the following reasons:

• There was no consensus for this change to the lede, which has been pretty stable recently.
• Astronomical phenomena don't predict things; people predict things!
• The use of the word "cause" is problematic, because modern western astrologers typically deny a causal relationship between astronomical phenomena and human events. The standing word "relationship" is both more neutral and more accurate, in my opinion.--Other Choices (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@OC. Just a few days ago you added this sentence in the Hindu astrology section: "Hindu astrology is oriented toward predicting one's fate or destiny."

And if we look at common Western astrology practices like Transit (astrology), Astrological progression and Horary astrology, then isn't it abundantly clear that most astrology techniques are still being used to predict/forecast events? The lede of these articles starts right away with this sentence: "Astrological transits are one of the main means used in horoscopic astrology to forecast future trends and developments...."

We cannot deny the obvious. If you go to any astrology forum you can see that most astrologers are still trying very hard to predict events. I do agree that the formulation you reverted was not phrased very well, and it is true that not all astrologers make predictions.

I think a better phrasing would be: "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that astronomical phenomena can be used to answer questions or make forecasts about events in the human world." MakeSense64 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the word "predict," as long as we say that humans (and not phenomena) are doing the predicting. Perhaps language like "...hold that astronomical phenomena can be used to predict..."--Other Choices (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging in: Hard aspect (astrology), Angle_(astrology), Yod (astrology), Promittor_(astrology), Orb (astrology), Dissociate aspect (astrology), Kite aspect and Departing aspect (astrology) as well as others from in Category:Astrological aspects, into a single section in this article. There are far too many sub-articles on technical aspects of astrology which likely fail the test of notability. If it gets too large, it can be rolled off as a single combined article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support or support if only sourced material is merged. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support With FormerIP's caveat. Also, there is likely still a lot of stuff left over from the walled garden days of astrology before the WP:ARBPS ruling. One of these days I'm going to go through the various astrology categories and trim the fat. For instance, I find it hard to believe that the various BLPs we have on astrologers have adequate sourcing considering that mainstream media rarely touch it. Is Robert Curry really notable enough for an article? Sædon^talk 00:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply I guess you mean Robert Currey. There is no shortage of problem cases in List of astrologers and Category:Astrologers. But when I put one in AfD last year this was the result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Astrology Prince. Currey's article is better sourced than that one.

WP has put the bar very low for astrologers. If you read WP:ACADEMIC, section "Notes to specific criteria", then #6, 7 and 8 are clearly excluding pseudo-science related activities or books. So, an academic who publishes astrology books/journal or starts an astrology "institute" does not gain notability for it. But when an ordinary person writes astrology books and get some friendly colleagues to mention or comment on it in their in-universe publications, then they do get a wp article as astrologers. Isn't that weird? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To generate some attention from the community you need to post at wikiprojects like the wikiproject astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even some of the biographies of deceased people have dubious notability: Anthony_Griffin_(astrologer) even has the sentence: "Little is known of the author". :| IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the creations of our old friend Zac, as you can see in the history. How do you dare to doubt the notability of an English astrologer, even when little is known about him?. ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. There are many more of these in Category:Technical factors of astrology. I recently prodded the most useless ones, but there is more cleanup/merging to do. That kind of articles would be OK in a wikia devoted to astrology, but this is a general purpose encyclopedia. Can try to merge those that are least halfway sourced, and for the rest I would consider ProD or AfD. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. I seem to have misread the question. With merge I mean merge into Astrological aspect. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support merging any material that is truly noteworthy to a general reading audience and is supported by real-world independent sources, but flushing everything that is of interest only in universe or relies solely on in-universe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Wait a minute. The content in question is specifically related to western astrology. It shouldn't be merged here, but to that article.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Most of this material is specific to Western Astrology, and would be out of place in a top-level article on astrology in general. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

They sure shouldn't come in the general astrology article. We do have Astrological aspect and while it needs more sources, that's where a bunch of these articles should be merged into. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Western_astrology and Astrological aspect work as merge targets. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

another Hindu reference sourced to astrologer James Braha

Recently MakeSense64 added a sentence to the Hindu astrology sub-section that was sourced to a self-published book by "in-universe" astrologer James Braha. I raised the concern that this wasn't a reliable source, but no other editor shared this concern, and the addition to the article was allowed to stand. If the editors on this page continue to consider Braha to be a reliable source, that's fine with me. I've added another sentence to the beginning of the Hindu astrology sub-section using a different book by the same author and publisher. If other editors now decide to revert, based on the logical view that Braha is NOT an acceptable source, then I think it would be consistent to also delete the other sentence that is sourced to Braha.--Other Choices (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember adding anything like that. I have done some cleanup in that section, but did not add anything. And where did you raise concern about "my addition"? Please do not speculate about who added what in the article. If you are not sure who added what, then just comment on content without mentioning editors. See WP:CIVIL.

The source you mention was added there last year by Coaster92: [3]. Of course, there are probably better sources for that piece of information.

The sentence you now added appears rather useless to me, and I think you will need a much better source for statements about the "culture". To use an astrology source for "what astrologers believe or do" would be one thing, to use an astrology source for general statements about Indian culture is quite another thing. Do you see the difference?

You may also want to read WP:POINTY, because the way you explain your edit here is pointing in that direction.MakeSense64 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see now, you edited the sentence that cites Braha (which is why I thought you added the source), but you didn't add the source. I raised my concern earlier here.

I see the difference between using an astrology source for astrological practice and using it to illustrate a cultural point, so I removed that part from the sentence.

Thank you for bringing up WP:POINTY, and for being inclined to give me the benefit of the doubt. My point here was to establish whether Braha (and by extension, other in-universe sources) is off-limits for the article in all cases, to clarify what I can and cannot reasonably propose for inclusion. It was my understanding (per the cited diff above) that a self-published source like Braha was unacceptable in all cases, but I don't mind being corrected.

It looks like Braha was earlier being used to reinforce a point made using a reliable source, but your cleanup eliminated the other source.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific, and provide diffs of the source being removed, so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I figured out what happened. In this diff, you split in half a paragraph referenced to Lewis, moving the second half to another section and leaving the first part without a reference, except for the appearance that it was all cited to Braha. Then MakeSense64 came along and cleaned up the paragraph with this diff. Perhaps a workable solution would be to remove all reference to Braha and restore some of the language drawn from Lewis, adding a citation.--Other Choices (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The cleanup I did in those sections was mainly to restore NPOV. We don't need to be describing Western astrology in the Hindu astrology section. It was written too much from the Western astrology point of view. We are just to give basic descriptions of the main traditions here, and further details are to go in the standalone articles about these traditions. We also try to consider due weight, so try to give somewhat similar space to these major astrology traditions.

In answer to OC. Why are you trying to establish which (if any) in-universe sources can be used? The normal way of working is first try to write the article on the basis of the best and most independent sources we can find. Trying to add material on the basis of lower quality and in-universe sources is always the last stop, not the first thing to do. Previous problems with this article have always come with editors who insisted on adding questionable in-universe stuff. For example, if we were to write an article about the US presidential elections, we would also not start by using the publications of the Republican party as a source wherever we can, would we? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't got time to edit at the moment, but if you are looking for sources on Indian astrology there are scientific papers by David Pingree. We are only citing him once at the moment, and that's only a Britannica article he co-wrote. His papers should be a good start. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link that summarizes Pingree's basic contribution to the study of Hindu astrology. It's not a reliable source, of course, but its two footnotes tell us exactly where to look in Pingree's own writings, if anyone has the inclination and access to a good university library.

And here's a collection of astrology-related articles from the Times of India.--Other Choices (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite a while ago, I added a a couple of lines about the difference between eastern and western astrology to make it more clear. I am not an expert in astrology and I could not make sense of the section, which very likely could be understood by someone more knowledgeable about the topic. I researched to find some explanation that might be helpful to a reader coming to this article with no background in the subject, but hoping to learn about the topic. I found the brief explanation in Braha's book. If there is a better source, so be it. My only concern/recommendation is to retain the brief explanation for newcomers to the topic.Coaster92 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's help those who have joined us in midstream and tell them the fuss is about the following statement, which was once the opening of the Vedic section. It is attributed to Mr. Braha:

Hindu astrology is oriented toward predicting one's fate or destiny.

I won't tell you this is generally accepted as true, as Mr. Braha has dressed up the fact that the majority of Indians want to know when they will get married, when they will get a job, when they will get promoted, if they will ever get rich, if their sons will make them rich, if their daughters will be beauties and attract handsome suitors - who will make them rich. Indians who consult pandits are not spiritual at all. They're very practical. They want money.

Without the fancy "fate" and "destiny," you could get pretty much the same statement from virtually any Indian astrologer. Here is K.N. Rao, generally regarded as the leading, living Vedic astrologer, taken from the back of Risks and Tricks in Astrological Predictions, published by Vani Publications, Delhi, second edition, 2007:

The essence of Hindu astrology is its predictive brilliance with manifold techniques. Eighteen rishis who gave us jyotisha and many more, whose name is less known, have contributed to the richest repertoire of predictive techniques of Hindu astrology.

You could use that, but, oh, wait. Neutral point of view and all that. By contrast, the current opening statement, Hindu astrology originated with western astrology, is David Pingree's private opinion. Careful examination of the Yavana Jataka (it's properly two words, not one), the source of Pingree's claim, does not support his premise. Pingree was an expert in ancient Greek and Middle Eastern texts. A casual comparison of Vettius Valens' Anthologies - Greek astrology - with Vedic astrology, shows Indian astrology to be internally consistent. Greek astrology was not (ref: Greek Horoscopes by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, 1959). This is largely due to the fact that equal house horoscopes only work in tropical climes, such as that of India. Take them out of the tropics and with every degree past 30 N, they break down, but that's what the Greeks had because they did not have an effective counting system. (Starting around 300 AD, the Indians did.) Alexandria is at 31 N. The latitude problem, combined with the number problem, explains both Chinese astrology, as well as the delayed arrival of astrology in medieval Europe. So how, exactly, could the Indians profit from a faulty Greek system?

The western assertion, there are no earlier Indian texts, ignores oral transmission. Which Shri Rao has found to still be in existence, throughout modern India. Here is the concluding paragraph from the back of Risks and Tricks:

From time to time, all over India I came across astrologers who used some of these techniques which are hinted at only in some books but not elaborated. I tried them, modified or added to them sometimes from my own experience.

Rao makes the same claim in some of his other books. Given that I have a library of approximately 500 Vedic titles, Rao is in fact the only source for what he claims is unique. If, after the Mongol invasion, the English colonization and the partition of the late 1940's, Rao can still find oral transmission, it is presumably deeply entrenched. Indian astrology in fact goes far, far beyond anything the Greeks ever imagined. Again, I have the books in my library.

I've had a glimpse at Tibetan astrology. Much of it was organized around the human hand, as in, counting on your fingers. The Chinese were never that crude.

This is a lot of effort to expend on an opening sentence. The current Wiki editors have, I presume, seen only one or two Vedic astrology books and are clearly out of their league. For all Wiki editors know, James Braha is the Linda_Goodman of Vedic astrology - which, so far as what Mr. Braha has actually published, is very nearly true. To his credit, Braha has nearly 30 years experience in the field. He was trained by the late R. Santhanam, one of the leading pandits of his day. Santhanam had numerous Sanskrit to English translations to his credit. If I had to pick an American for a reference, I'd pass by Braha and go for Hart de Fouw and Robert Svoboda, but aside from them, Braha is very nearly at the top of living American Vedic astrologers. If he won't do, you've got real problems. And don't tell me about the "in-universe" thing. You're simply inventing excuses. If you want authoritative work, you will need to consult genuine authorities. Not carping scientists. Dave of Maryland (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge in Astrologer

Astrologer appears to largely overlap with what is covered in the article already and seems ideal for a merger. Any opinions? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember from earlier discussion, the idea is to have an article similar to Astronomer. It is intended to describe their profession, practices, history... I did a lot of cleanup in that article last year, and it has been quite stable since (it used to be a kind of waste dump full of astrologer names). Just like we have articles like Mathematician and Biologist, it makes sense to have Astrologer as a standalone article. And it appears to be properly sourced. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a more meaningful comparison is not to a scientist but to other pseudoscientists like dowser, which is a redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say astrologer is somewhere in between because it was considered a science for the larger part of its history (until it was split in astronomy and astrology). Dowsing never was a proper science, so that comparison is also not very useful. I would say that Astrologer mainly needs a good rewrite, because right now the article seems to be used mainly to describe "astrology", rather than "astrologer". MakeSense64 (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

See Alchemist also, which was considered a respectable subject as well in past history. It could be merged and spun out if it ever got worked on. IRWolfie- (talk)

There was a point raised a few weeks ago that this article is focused on the cultural importance of astrology, not on what astrologers think and do. If we merge in "astrologer," then it seems that we'll have to expand the scope of this article, which is fine with me if that is where other editors want to go.--Other Choices (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey Dean and Ivan W. Kelly Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?

I read the PDF but I am still not clear what test criteria they have used for their tests.

I have developed an application that can find whether you are a Man or Woman just by taking your birth time and place, and that is with 70 % accuracy. The accuracy is gained with the 35 people I have used for my test so far.

But if I tried to predict, say, something like, when you gonna die or something, then I am bound to fail there. Astrological theories says that is not possible to predict. Then again if I tried to predict, when you going to get marry or something, I will definitely have a very low accuracy rate there too. You can use such test criteria only if you want to disprove it.

I don't see GOD, so I conclude that god does not exist. Can I come to that conclusion too.. and prove that the Christianity is wrong.

So what I am trying to say here is that, this 'Geoffrey' may have used a set of wrong test criteria to prove astrology is wrong. unless he open his test criteria how we can trust his test and in what basis wiki uses his test results to disprove astrology.

--L.W.C. Nirosh 11:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)c_nirosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh (talk • contribs)

The paper which is linked is a discussion of all the studies done by himself and some others, the article cites the actual individual papers where the studies are presented in more detail. those are the ones you need to read if you want the detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

--@IRWolfie, Thanks for your comment. But I cannot find the paper that claimed to have more details. The one I read is "Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?" and that virtually have no evidence what so ever on actual test criteria used. However it does have some test results. The results clearly indicated the inaccuracy of astrological conclusions. But my question is, have these tests conducted in right manner. It at least does not have the details of those astrologers participated in those controlled test. We need not just their names but their competencies as well in the paper. Unless you expose the details and link them from the wiki page, I don't think it is fair to use those so called controlled test to disprove astrology. — by L.W.C. Nirosh (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the right paper. As IRWolfie said, it's a review of many other papers, which are listed at the end of the article in the "References" section and cited in parentheses in the relevant section of the text. For details, you have to read the paper being discussed in the section you are interested in. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Let me read that and see.. — by L.W.C. Nirosh (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I may be dumb. I cannot find any online source that has the details of a such controlled test they claimed to use for their conclusions. Can you 'Dominus Vobisdu' or 'RWolfie' point me to one such source?.. — by L.W.C. Nirosh (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you using to search the papers mentioned in the references? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I went through the references of that PDF given above and Googled their titles, names etc (as none of those references had direct links). Some references had valid online resources but some didn't. However I couldn't find a single reference item that link to a detail result of a controlled test. Are they really exists?? L.W.C Nirosh (talk)

You don't just google for papers. They are in academic journals and you should look for them through the normal channels you would for academic papers. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have better luck with scholar.google.com rather than google.com. Regardless, the references gives enough information to obtain the article by usual scholarly methods. Walk into a university library and ask, if you don't know what that means, they can't tell you're not a student. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To me 'Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya' is an absolute dunce at Astrology

• What is his education on astrology? Nothing
• Do you have any record of his formal education? I cannot find any.

But this guy's argument on astrology is quoted here with great respect. but have you guys quoted his understanding of the milky way galaxy too? He had said that 'Milky Way galaxy is a myriad of tiny stars packed together in the sphere of the fixed stars' Is this accurate? What are those fixed stars that he had noted there?? Can anybody explain please?.

I have taken the part below from the wiki page itself..

"And if you astrologers answer that it is precisely because of this distance and smallness that their influences are negligible, then why is it that you claim a great influence for the smallest heavenly body, Mercury? Why is it that you have given an influence to al-Ra's and al-Dhanab, which are two imaginary points [ascending and descending nodes]?" —Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya

Listen... What matter in astrology is not the gravitational force of a distance planet but their reflection of sun light and their positions in respect to earth. I don't think this guy knows at least the basics of astrology. You eat food, and that need for the growth of your body, but do you need the same amount of poisons to kill you too. In astrology Sun and Moon act like the food. You eat food every day, don't you? Other planets and two shadowy planets (Rahu and Ketu) act as medicines or poisons for you. Do you take medicine every day? How many kilos of paracetamol did you take to cure yourself from a regular fever? or cyanide to kill yourself? Now with this understanding think how good this 'Qayyim' argument is..... It seems to me that you guys have teamed-up just to disprove astrology. You find sources that help your course. I think you guys are burying the great goals Wikipedia initially had..

I can talk about Mercury and how influential it is, but does it matter here?

— by L.W.C. Nirosh (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the quote has just been in the article for years and noone has bothered to look at it. Bear in mind the guy has been dead for around 700 years. I'll have a look at it later and see what can be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I researched a bit about the guy, I know he is dead now (the title is changed too). Wiki is all about constant reviews and corrections, so for how long the quote was their in the page does not really matter, if found wrong then shall be removed. In my mind, I don't think that he is educated/ respected enough in this field to quote his comment in this wiki page. — by L.W.C. Nirosh (talk • contribs)

In your mind? But you don't even know what the fixed stars are, so what use is that? The quote does show that common-sense objections to astrology have been around for a long time. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the quote is within the theological viewpoints section. I'm guessing he believes in flying horses, so there's no disputing that he's an idiot. Do you have any sources for your refutation of the Qayyim quote? Sounds like astrologers have stumbled on a new branch of physics again, if only they can prove it. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This should stay in, as a landmark in the questioning of astrology. In medieval astronomy, the heavenly bodies are considered to rotate in spheres and the Milky Way is indeed in the sphere of the fixed stars, I.e. it appears to wheel around the sky together with the other stars ("fixed stars" as opposed to "planet stars"). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

The principles and practice section is fairly bad, with citations and sourcing certainly lacking. We could selectively merge in Western astrology, Hindu astrology and Chinese astrology. Does anyone have any thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Bias

The entire astrology article is a train wreck of inaccuracies and misrepresentations and I chose to improve this section, not because it was any worse than other sections, but because it is short and reflects on the article as a whole. As I expected, all of my edits have now been reverted, except a bit at the start which the reverting editor liked because of the “flow.”

Cognitive bias is about the power of suggestion and circumstance, in this case the belief that participants are getting personally valid information from a trusted source. The content of this WP section should develop this concept and connect it to astrology. The problem, however, is that the content conflates a “classroom demonstration” with a scientific experiment that has been “replicated” in other “studies”. This is demonstrably inaccurate. There is nothing in the sources that claims or even suggests that these are controlled scientific experiments. There were no scientific comparison. The comparative language used in this section is misleading OR. In Forer’s 1949 demonstration, and repetitions by others, described by Eysenck and Nias, the “results” were selected for “universal validity”. In other words, there was no way to distinguish the validity of one result as any more personal than another. There was nothing to scientifically discriminate. Additionally, there was no way to distinguish these bogus results from the actual results of Forer’s DIB personality test, assuming the DIB was a legitimate personality test. The reversion of this section claims that the students could not distinguish between “common” and “uncommon” results. This is inaccurate and misleading OR. The students were not asked to make that distinction. They were asked to rate how the results described themselves. Since all the results presented to the students were selected for “universal validity”, the expectation should be that each result item receives the highest score of 5. The fact that the average rating was 4.2 shows some skepticism on the part of the students.

It is a stretch to associate these personal validation demonstrations to astrology without actually using astrology, though the suggestion can be made. Neither Forer nor Eysenck claim that the results of these demonstrations were any sort of indictment of astrology. Forer selected his fake results “largely from a newsstand astrology book” taking care to cherry pick for universal validity. This is fine for demonstrating personal validation but of course it is not scientific regarding the astrology. Forer does not cite the author of the book, nor is there a need to. Editors who don’t understand why, and cannot tell the difference between reliable and unreliable astrology sources, and claim there is no difference, should not be editing or commenting on astrology articles. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored to the version where I edited to remove OR and inaccurate POV pushing. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of original research in what you've written above. I think you've added too many caveats and unnecessary language in order to downplay the study. Please don't edit war to reinsert this content. It's December 24th (Christmas eve), so I think it's fair to give editors a few days to respond and get discussion going. In the meantime, additional sources would help. Short of that, perhaps providing exact language from the sources we're using to demonstrate where it differs from our article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted original research changes by Skinwalker who thinks I am an astrologer. I am not. I am trying to bring some impartiality here. Please cite specific changes in this Talk section and give good reasons for any changes you think should be made. The caveats are well deserved as the Forer demonstration is widely abused and misrepresented among those who consider themselves to be skeptics. Sorry for the Dec. 24th edits, but I've got a bit of time off and I don't get as much chance to improve this article as much as it needs. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted you. That's a response to the fact that you seemed to be edit warring, not a comment on the merits of your changes, which I have no opinion about. Your suggestion that the article is biased may have merit, but you'll find that a more gradual and tactful approach to changing it will yield better results. It's always that way with articles on controversial subjects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"The caveats are well deserved as the Forer demonstration is widely abused and misrepresented among those who consider themselves to be skeptics." – Ken McRitchie[4]

This is not quite right per the reliable sources at hand...

Since a classic study by Forer(1949), empirical evidence consistent with the folklore has been garnered in a series of ingenious experiments (e.g., Handelsman & Snyder, 1982; Snyder & Larson, 1972; Snyder, Larsen, & Bloom, 1976; Snyder, Shenkel, & Lowery, 1977). These experiments all assess a phenomenon which, following Meehl (1956), has been termed the "Barnum effect," after the man who purportedly stated that a good circus had a "little something for everybody." They have consistently demonstrated that individuals who erroneously believe that certain high base rate personality profiles were prepared specifically for them usually rate them as extremely accurate descriptions of themselves.

Please note the "classic study by Forer(1949)" along with "empirical evidence consistent with". We also have...

[T]hey fail to consider the possibility that equally accurate descriptions can be produced if their minds are not being read (Fischhoff & Beyth-Marom, 1983; Forer, 1949; Hyman, 1977). People who wish to believe in astrology or the predictive power of psychics will have no problem finding some predictions that have turned out to be true, and this may suffice to strengthen their belief if they fail to consider either predictions that proved not to be accurate or the possibility that people without the ability to see the future could make predictions with equally high (or low) hit rates. A confirmation bias can work here an two ways: (a) people may attend selectively to what is said that turns out to be true, ignoring or discounting what turns out to be false, and (b) they may consider only p(D|H), the probability that what was said would be said if the seer could really see, and fail to consider p(D|~R), the probability that what was said would be said if the seer had no special psychic powers.

It is best if we go by the best sources (e.g., those found in peer-reviewed journals). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There are three main problems in this short section.

1. This section fails to mention the critical issue of “universal validity” that Forer described. “A universally valid personality description is of the type most likely to be accepted by a client as a truth about himself, a truth which he considers unique to him.” (Forer p.2 – page numbers in the reprint). Universal validity is what the Barnum effect is about and is the focus of the Rogers and Soule study cited later in this section.

It fails to mention that the (fake) result descriptions presented to the students were intentionally selected for universal validity. “These statements came largely from a news stand astrology book.” (Forer p.6). “This sketch was designed for more nearly universal validity than Paterson’s appears to have been.” (Forer p.6). Otherwise, there is the inaccurate implication that all astrological statements, even those from reliable sources, are written for universal validity.

This is why I suggested the existing content: “The personality descriptions were taken from a book on Astrology” would be more accurate, and less misleading, if it says: “The personality descriptions were selected largely from a newsstand astrology book and included only traits that Forer described as having ‘universal validity’.”

Agree or disagree?

2. The article Forer presents is not a scientific study and should not be presented in language (“study” “replicated”) that suggests one. “The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility” (Forer – title page). Forer’s demonstration is a trick, a fake, a misdirection to fool the students. There are no scientific controls. It is no more scientific than an ordinary magic trick. This is why I suggest the existing scientific sounding content: “The results of this study have been replicated in numerous other studies” would be more accurate, and less misleading, if it says: “The results of this classroom demonstration have been repeated numerous times.”

Agree or disagree?

3. The existing content: “Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors”, though it is slightly reworded, comes from the review of previous literature (in this case of Forer 1949) in the cited Rogers and Soule 2009 source (p.383), which BTW supersedes the sources cited here by ArtifexMayhem. But Rogers and Soule design their test to overcome the limitations of the previous tests in order to test if this conclusion is actually true. “However, it is possible Barnum profiles are accepted because being so general, they actually do apply to everyone.” (Rogers and Soule p. 384) and they cite three separate sources of this criticism. To overcome this limitation, the authors test for “accuracy for self” and “accuracy for others in general” (Rogers and Soule p. 384). Accuracy for others would mean the statements are recognized as applying to everyone. What they found was “Thus, with a more stringent definition of the Barnum effect, and all other things being equal, it seems respondents were able to recognize the universality of their (fake) astrological profiles.” (Rogers and Soule p. 392 and summarized in the abstract).

I suggest the existing content: “Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors” would be more accurate it if says: “A recent scientific study, however, found that recipients of these personality assessments were able to recognize the universality of their fake profiles.”

Agree or disagree? Ken McRitchie (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a surprising lack of discussion on these suggested changes. Since silence is consent. I've been accused of edit warring so I'll wait before implementing these changes, unless of course someone else is willing. There are other sections I'd like to get to if I have time. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. Speaking for myself, I do not feel like wading into the morass of TLDR, leading questions, and straw men you've deposited above. Suffice to say your proposals revolve around original research (on your part) and your intentional misrepresentation of the sources. This was explained to you above, yet you've persisted in repeating yourself. These changes are unacceptable. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is little to be gained from discussing original research. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring assumes that changes are being made without proper discussion. So far this is silence. I have provided a breakdown of the section with proper citations that support the suggested changes and now it is suggested that this is somehow original research. Please explain why you either agree or disagree with each of the three parts and reasons why you think this is original research. Rogers and Soule 2009 have considered the previous arguments and, unlike previous discussions, have conducted a test that provides a control for whether the participants recognize universal validity. Again, control for this was absent in previous tests and discussions, and noted by other authors. In Forer 1949, there were no controls, which renders it unscientific. It was a pure and intentional deception. The results of Rogers and Soule demonstrate that the participants do recognize universal validity in the same statements Forer used. With this settled, the Barnum effect argument is greatly weakened from a scientific standpoint. The Cognitive Bias section should accurately reflect this research finding. If you think there were scientific controls in Forer and other previous tests, or there is some flaw in the Rogers and Soule test that you can source, you should enlighten us with the specifics. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring has nothing to do with discussion. It happens when an editor repeatedly reverts others, discussion or not. You should read WP:EW. It's not a big deal now; as long as you don't start reverting again, then the issue is settled, and we can focus on collaborating and discussing these changes. I'll leave the substance of the changes to you and others to hash out (my schedule is packed right now), but I wanted to correct that mistake, since it's an important one. Don't worry about it now, but please read up and understand it before going forward.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jess. To other editors, let's focus on collaborating and discussing these changes as suggested. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

To avoid accusations of edit warring, this is to notify concerned editors that the proposed three changed listed above, or a collaborated version of them, will be incorporated into the article on Jan. 3, 2012. Notification of attention to this section was posted on the Astrology Project talk page on Dec. 24th. This update date gives ample time to editors to offer collaborative clarifications and suggestions. Specifically, this invites Skinwalker and ArtifexMayhem, to provide substantive reasons and reliable references for their objections (e.g. leading questions, and straw men, original research, and intentional misrepresentation of the sources) and to engage in collaborative improvements to the proposed changes if any are required. If you require more time, please ask and state your reasons. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:BRD. In short, make your changes and if they get reverted, discuss rather than restoring the changes (ie. don't edit war). TippyGoomba (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Tippy, he already made the changes, and was reverted. Now we're in the D phase. I imagine discussion is a little slow because of the holidays (at least that's why I'm slow).   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ken, looking over this edit, I have a couple concerns.

1. You added "personally individualized", and changed "discussed" to "described". This is mostly stylistic, so I don't mind too much either way. However, "personally individualized" is redundant. "Described" is probably a better word there.
2. You added "selected largely from a newsstand astrology book and included only traits that Forer described as having "universal validity"". Looking at our source, I don't see much emphasis on the fact that it came from a newsstand, nor any mention at all that he only selected for "universal validity". See page 134 of our source. It seems to me that "newsstand" only serves to potentially discredit the book he used, which we should avoid. Obviously, we should not be saying he selected for universal validity if it's unsourced, and even so, we need to be careful to describe the topic fully and relevantly, not place undue emphasis on a subtopic.
3. You changed "study" to "classroom test". I don't see that in the source, which consistently calls it "research". It doesn't seem to me to serve any purpose but to potentially discredit the test. We should avoid that.
4. You added "personality descriptions based before "fake horoscopes". Not a big deal, but I don't see this as really necessary, and it just adds complexity to the sentence. We're talking about personality descriptions the entire section, so that should be a given when we say "fake horoscopes".
5. You changed "fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors" to "tend to accept personality descriptions that apply to nearly everyone". I don't think this is an improvement. The point of the Barnum effect is that participants can't distinguish between custom tailored descriptions of their personality and vague statements that apply universally. Your proposed wording makes it sound obvious, as though their description was "you are human". The new wording doesn't properly describe the effect or the experiment in a way our readers will understand.
6. You added "sun sign" and removed "star sign" in one section. That looks like an improvement; our source calls it sun sign astrology, so we should too.
7. You changed "studies" to "demonstrations". I don't know if that's warranted. Actual studies have been done.

Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jess and TippyGoomba. I've taken Tippy's suggestion and made the changes in the article. Jess, in response to your comments, I've added quotes from the sources in the article and in the references.

1. Agreed, no problem.
2. The difference is the Forer says "news stand" and I've corrected this to "newsstand" which is the correct spelling. Forer makes it clear that he is trying to create a sketch that has as much "universal validity" as he can possibly write, so he is selecting. I've put a quote on this in the citation.
3. There should be no doubt that this is a "classroom demonstration" because that is in the title of Forer's article and I agree that it does tend to discredit the article.
4. Agreed.
5. Thanks, I've reworded this based on what Rogers and Soule found, and I quote from page 392 of their article, the substance of which is also summarized in the abstract for their article.
6. Thanks, sun sign is the usual designation over star sign.
7. I use "demonstration" because that is what Forer calls it in his title and elsewhere.

Thanks for helping to improve this section. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see little reasons for the edits which Ritchie made. It for example, converts the use of a source as a secondary source of the literature, into a primary source, where it's quotemined without context; the text is actually about how the Barnum effect appears to be different across cultural boundaries, so it was talking about results with Chinese students. Also, the secondary sources call the original and all subsequent studies, as studies, not demonstrations. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie- has reverted the collaborative edits and this reversion has made the section less accurate. IRW has offered two reasons for the reversions:

1) IRW thinks the collaborative edits “quotemined” a “secondary source” (Rogers and Soule, 2009) which IRW claims to be only about cross-cultural differences. This is not accurate. R&S was not limited to cross-cultural differences and tested for several other factors. It included a critical and revealing test for "self" versus "others" to make the experiment “more stringent” than previous research. Here's a quote from the article (p.384):

In line with all Barnum studies, profiles are rated for how accurately they described the respondents’ own personality (“accuracy for self”). However, it is possible Barnum profiles are accepted because being so general, they actually do apply to everyone (Bayne, 1980; French et al., 1991/1998; Johnson et al., 1985; Snyder & Larsen, 1972). To assess whether recipients recognize their universality, profiles are also rated for how accurately they appear to describe other people in general (“accuracy for others”). Direct comparison of self versus other accuracy ratings will thus provide a more stringent definition of the Barnum effect than that found in previous research (e.g., Forer, 1949; Stachnik & Stachnik, 1980).

2) IRW thinks the Forer test “The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility” should be called a “study” (implying a scientific experiment) instead of what it actually called itself. This obviously is not accurate. I see references to Barnum effect tests, which might have been called studies, but none for Forer’s classroom test.

Additionally, none of the cited sources mention “cognitive bias”. Therefore the heading should state what is actually being discussed in the sources, which is the Barnum Effect. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I said it should be called a study because the secondary source we are using calls it a study. Your edits have tried to downplay the original Forer paper, and then act as though the only follow up paper was the Rogers paper which contradicted the original. That's a completely inaccurate and highly misleading interpretation of the sources. You are trying to construct an argument to dismiss the barnum effect, based on a glaring misinterpretation of the source, whether the omission is deliberate or not I don't know. You cut out a bit of the quote which doesn't suit your argument, which I've highlighted in bold "These conflicting results cast some doubt on the general robustness of the Barnum effect and suggest that Barnum acceptance is affected by at least some demographic factors." and then the next parts, which I've included verbatim: "Findings also suggest that Barnum profiles might be accepted as accurate descriptions of the self because they actually do apply to everyone (Bayne, 1980; French et al., 1991/1998; Snyder & Larsen, 1972). Future research needs to reexamine the extent to which Barnum profiles are accepted as accurate self-descriptions over and above the rejection of other person descriptions . In the meantime, all subsequent discussion of “Barnum acceptance” reflects the less stringent measurement—namely, perceived accuracy for the self (alone)—as used often in previous research. —as used often in previous research (e.g., Forer, 1949; Stachnik & Stachnik, 1980). Third, astrological believers deemed a Barnum profile supposedly derived from astrology to be a better description of their own personality than did astrological skeptics. This was true regardless of respondent’s ethnicity and/or apparent profile source. These trends are consistent with the view that Barnum acceptance is influenced by prior beliefs and top-down processing (French et al., 1991/1998; Glick et al., 1989). Similarly, believers also judged Barnum profiles to be more helpful, to be more favorable, and to offer more support for the validity of astrology. This reinforces still further the view that individuals who endorse astrological beliefs are prone to judging the legitimacy and usefulness of horoscopes according to their a priori expectations (Dean, 1991; Fichten & Sunerton, 1983; Munro & Munro, 200 ". You completely cherry picked and then manipulated a quote. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not an astrologer? Since when? You realize we all have access to google, right? Fudging your background to make yourself appear more credible is in bad faith and bad form. Sædon^talk 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am open about who I am. I do not make any money from astrology, either for or against. I am an astrology critic, but I also criticize astrology skeptics. The controversy interests me and I offer suggestions to clarify the issues and resolve differences. Check it out anytime. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't make any money from astrology? You give out the books you write on astrology for free? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks IRWolfie-. I wrote a book in 2001 that reverse engineers astrology to see how it is made, and yes I give it away for free. The entire book is available online. Do you want a hard copy? Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ken, thanks for your replies. I want to respond specifically to one thing you said: "There should be no doubt that this is a "classroom demonstration" because that is in the title of Forer's article and I agree that it does tend to discredit the article." It is not our job to discredit sources which don't speak positively of Astrology. Using language chosen specifically to most discredit the sources we find unfavorable would be a gross violation of NPOV, and would do our readers a huge disservice. While the title of the original article may include "classroom demonstration", the lengthy article says "study" and "research" throughout - wording which is also adopted by the secondary sources which discuss his experiment in more depth. I think this is a common thread within your proposed change. While you are undoubtedly operating in good faith, it seems to me that you are attempting to downplay and discredit a part of the article that you feel is bogus. I get why you'd want to do that - bogus stuff shouldn't be represented as legitimate research - but you must understand that we use the sources, and not our own opinions, to determine how a subject is represented. Our sources (research articles, mainstream news articles and programs, secondary sources and so on) discuss this issue positively, as a real effect that really relates to the legitimacy of Astrology. We have to represent that, and not downplay it by selectively picking language to undermine its legitimacy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jess. I think there was a misunderstanding because you and I seem to have been looking at two different articles. Forer's article, which started the whole Barnum effect discussion and is referenced in this WP article, is titled as a "classroom demonstration." Forer does not claim that it is scientific "research" or a "study" and he does not use these terms. It was a classroom demonstration, like a magic trick to fool his students, and is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is an essential component of a scientific study. When you said that calling it a classroom test would serve only to "potentially discredit the test" I was simply agreeing with the implication. However, you seem to have looked at the Rogers and Soule article, which does indeed call the Forer demonstration a "study" and "research." This might be a concession resulting from subsequent scientific tests of the Barnum effect that hearken back to the Forer test. Because Rogers and Soule is a reliable and recent source, I'll agree with the terms "study" and "research" as applied to Forer. It was seriously flawed if regarded as research, but it did kick off other studies, which is perhaps the important thing about it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's published in a scientific journal. Do you expect him to say "This is scientific work we have here" in the article? No, of course not, it's a study in a scientific journal, and is treated as such by the secondary sources. It's irrelevant anyway, since the study has been replicated many times. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, thank you for your comments.

1. As I mentioned earlier, there are no references to “cognitive bias” in any of the sources, and that is why I changed the heading. I inadvertently left an instance of “cognitive bias” in the content, which you overlooked in your edits, although you made other changes to the same sentence. I think we agree that the use of “cognitive bias” here is original research and inaccurate. Please, let’s correct each other on the things that we agree on.
2. As I mentioned to Jess above, I’ll agree that the Forer’s “classroom demonstration” (his own description) may also be called a “study” or “research” as per Rogers and Soule’s citations, though Forer himself made no such claims. See my chat on The Forer Test.
3. Nickerson, citing Gilovich, does not say that people who believe astrology “selectively remember or don’t remember”, as you have documented. He says they “overweigh supportive evidence” and “underweigh opposing evidence”. (p. 181) However, I do agree with you that this is confirmation bias.
4. Nickerson does not say “believers often fail to distinguish between personalised and general messages,” as you documented. I think you are referring to his statement (p. 181) that believers may not consider whether the statements would or would not actually require “special psychic powers.” Since this pertains to the separate question of psychic powers, I don’t think it belongs in this article on astrology.
5. What you call a “glaring misrepresentation” is something else that I also agree on. I omitted the words you bolded for brevity and to fit what was already in the article. I completely agree with the text: “Barnum acceptance is affected by at least some demographic factors.” That is the whole purpose of Rogers and Soule and their study goes in the right direction by looking at external factors and inducements, taking the issue further away from being simply a question of cognition. In my opinion, it attempts to cover some of the flaws in the Forer test.
6. I don’t know why you insist on calling the results sheet that Forer presented his students a “discussion.” Maybe there is a cultural difference here. The results were a list of 13 declarations. To me a discussion means a thorough evaluation of something from different perspectives, and “description” is the better term to use here.
7. Your edits have removed (twice) the crucial information that Forer’s fake results “came largely from a newsstand astrology book” (Forer p. 119) and that they were “designed” by him for “nearly universal validity” (Forer p. 119). Please refer to Forer’s article. It is important to be specific here. Otherwise, readers might be misled (by their own confirmation biases) to think that Forer randomly selected a sample of statements from reliable astrology texts. We’re trying to be critical of confirmation bias, aren’t we? Let’s not skip these relevant details and please document what is said. Without establishing his selection for universal validity, Forer’s claim of “unique” and “personal validation” would be nonsense.
8. Your edits inaccurately document: “Consistent with previous research on the issue, it was found that those who believed in astrology are generally more susceptible to giving more credence to the Barnum profile than skeptics.” (Rogers and Soule p. 392). What they actually stated is “astrological believers deemed a Barnum profile supposedly derived from astrology to be a better description of their own personality than did astrological skeptics.” Rogers and Soule did not say, as you claim, that this was consistent with previous research. You term “susceptible” is loaded and suggestively misleading. The people who believed astrology might have tended to accept the Barnum profile more than skeptics because it actually was universally valid and the skeptics failed to recognize this. Let’s just stick with the facts as they were presented.
9. Your edits removed (again) Rogers and Soule’s major observation (also mentioned in the Abstract) that in general (apart from believers in astrology and other demographics): “respondents were able to recognize the universality of their (fake) astrological profiles” (p. 392). They were able to find this because unlike previous studies, they tested for “accuracy for self” and “accuracy for others” (p.384). Their findings support suggestions made by previous commentators (p. 392):

"However, when respondents’ gender, age, general education, and psychological awareness were all controlled for (via mixed ANCOVA), this perceived uniqueness disappeared. Thus, with a more stringent definition of the Barnum effect, and all other things being equal, it seems respondents were able to recognize the universality of their (fake) astrological profiles. These conflicting results cast some doubt on the general robustness of the Barnum effect (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Thiriart, 1991; Tyson, 1982) and suggest that Barnum acceptance is affected by at least some demographic factors (cf. Synder et al., 1977). Findings also suggest that Barnum profiles might be accepted as accurate descriptions of the self because they actually do apply to everyone (Bayne, 1980; French et al., 1991/1998; Snyder & Larsen, 1972)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken McRitchie (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rogers and Soule did not say, as you claim, that this was consistent with previous research. ", Yes they did, next sentence: "This reinforces still further the view that individuals who endorse astrological beliefs are prone to judging the legitimacy and usefulness of horoscopes according to their a priori expectations (Dean, 1991; Fichten & Sunerton, 1983; Munro & Munro, 2000)." What "discussion" are you talking about? Where have I called anything a discussion? Please point it out. You are still misrepresenting sources; you are changing the sequence of events in a source to try and discredit the source. What are you trying to achieve? What is the purpose of your edits? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie- I was simply editing for accuracy, as we all should do. In my previous post above, I have listed your inaccuracies in detail, nine of them, giving your interpretation of the source text in each instance compared to the actual text that you cited. It was a lot of work to find out where you went and track them all down. By putting your own words into the mouths of the authors and are doing original research. Anyone can see this and I urge you to stop. Instead of talking about the changes, you have simply reverted. Anyway, this was about as far as I was planning to go on this section, so this ends my contribution. There are plenty of other inaccuracies in the astrology article and this was just the tip of the iceberg. Wikipedia is a haven for positivists, who are the science version of religious fundamentalists, so I never expected my edits to last. Just letting you know that there are still some honest editors out there. Have a happy new year everyone. It's good weather for some skiing and snowboarding. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"It was a lot of work to find out where you went and ..." I fail to see why, the references include page numbers where the text is specifically supported. You are trying to arrive at conclusions where you use primary source claims to contradict secondary source claims. You have attempted to construct an argument that just doesn't exist in the source. The secondary sources are clear that confirmation bias is a real effect, and can be observed with respect to astrology believers. Your attempts to discredit this are nothing short of original research. I am not alone in having highlighted issues with your suggestions. I reverted your edits, yes. Then you kept inserting them without getting consensus. Perhaps you should read up on WP:BRD. Claims about science fundamentalist from an astrologer (or "astrology theorist" if you prefer) are amusing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And FYI, the nickerson part which you dismiss as being about psychic powers (being somehow distinguishable from astrology) is false as can be seen from a quote giving more context: "People who wish to believe in astrology or the predictive power of psychics will have no problem finding some predictions that have turned out to be true, and this may suffice to strengthen their belief if they fail to consider either predictions that proved not to be accurate or the possibility that people without the ability to see the future could make predictions with equally high (or low) hit rates." That sentence is about astrology. The next sentence then begins "A confirmation bias can work here in two ways ...". That's clearly about astrology and the confirmation bias there. That they don't treat astrologers as scientists as you may want, but as people who claim to have psychic powers (which other astrologers claim see google) doesn't mean it's not about astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead

User:Zymurgy added the word "discredited" before "belief systems" in the lead's definition of astrology. I removed it, because it is unnecessary. The lead already notes that astrology is a pseudo-science, and that it is rejected by the scientific community. Please let's not treat readers as morons who can't work out for themselves that if something is a pseudo-science that is rejected by the scientific community, that means it's discredited. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Polisher. We can agree to disagree about the use of "discredited" which as I said is used on the NLP article. However I do think that the lead needs to be re-ordered somewhat as the concepts jump back and forth, and indeed the pseudoscience reference comes only in the 3rd para. So in deference to your point above I have kept discredited out but put the re-ordering back in so that related sentences sit together a bit better. --Zymurgy (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the lead was fine as it was. Your edits have confused it and lowered its quality. I couldn't care less, in principle, whether the pseudo-science reference goes in the first, the second, or the third paragraph; it just happens that in the lead as currently written, it fits in best in the third paragraph, since that gives the context that explains it best. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we should avoid writing for an audience of morons. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But astrologers do read the article Sædon^talk 00:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed link: Astrology and Science

I was surprised to see that there is no link from this article to http://astrology-and-science.com/ Astrology and Science is a site by a former astrologer, now a scientist. The site describes research by many scientists, none of which validates any of the claims of astrologers. I would like to propose linking to the site; I am not associated with the site. Jordan Rothstein (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that website is too eclectic and ill-presented to be of immediate use to laymen or to be included here; it also needs verification before being accepted as a reliable source. At any rate, I suggest going through sections 2-4 of Wikipedia:External_links. François Robere (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There were links but they were removed: [5], if someone wants to ask Ohnoitsjamie about it, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Contentious edit

I made this edit [6], and want to explain my reasoning. I think readers who are scientifically illiterate and would otherwise read the section on the scientific appraisal who believe in astrology would be less likely to read the scientific appraisal section because they might be put off with what they regard as a dismissal. I think pseudoscience is an accurate and purely descriptive term, but they won't, and I want them to read more of the article because I've spent a lot of time on the appraisal section. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and forked the section, so my previous reasoning no longer applies. You can restore the above mentioned edit if anyone wants, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-science or proto-science?

Edit suggestion has been withdrawn, closing under WP:NOTFORUM

Pseudo-science or proto-science? For the sake of neutrality and coherence, Astrology would be better described as a proto-science as described on this page: [7]. There are no reasons per se, to label astrology as a pseudo-science that is clearly a derogatory term and a misrepresentation of the discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricelavenant (talk • contribs) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Can you cite independent reliable sources sources which refer to astrology as a 'proto-science?' AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Certainly, please refer to: "The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science.", page 674: "This patronage, however, was motivated more by astrological than other considerations." Mauricelavenant (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Fine, you have provided a source that describes astrology as a 'proto-science' in 17th-century India. Now provide one that says the same thing today. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which specifically mentions astrology as an example of a subject "generally considered pseudoscience": "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience". This has been discussed umpteen times before - I suggest you read the archives for this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you. May I now suggest you familiarise yourself with the term "protoscience", here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Protoscience and here: http://www.definitions.net/definition/protoscience Astronomy clearly evolved from astrology and, as such, it should be referred to as a protoscience which would be more accurate historically. It seems you have a vested interest in deriding astrology and deny it its rightful place in history which is neither neutral nor fair. I have no problems with quoting the scientific community's opinion on the topic. However, science is not the marker by which all things can be defined by a long shot. If in doubt, please, read Paul Feyerabend. Mauricelavenant (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) P.S: It does not seem fair to ask me for an independent source one minute, then use a Wikipedia source yourself, the next. I have noted countless inaccuracies and incoherences in numerous Wikipedia articles and I am not the only one, by far. Mauricelavenant (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC) May I now suggest you familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] policy, and then withdraw your unsubstantiated and somewhat ridiculous claim that I have "a vested interest in deriding astrology". I suggest you then read the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And then read the article. It states that "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified. There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics". All of which is properly cited, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has been discussed many times before, and will need better reasons to change than your unsubstantiated personal objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Astrology clearly qualifies as a proto-science as it pre-dates astronomy. In actual fact, astronomy and astrology were one and the same thing if you go far back enough in time. That being the case, calling astrology a pseudo-science is clearly deriding as the term does not convey the notion of a method out of which a more precise discipline later evolved. The term is equally applicable to the field of linguistic that recognises proto-language which does not seem as loaded, for some obscure reasons. I would like to point out respectfully that my objection is not only valid and substantiated but does not constitute a *personal attack* in any way. I am not insulting you personally. I am merely concerned with the accuracy and use of a term that does not seem quite fitting, in this case. As already mentioned, the current scientific perspective is not in question so I see no reason whatsoever to labour the point. I am NOT trying to say that astrology is "scientific" in any way. To call it a proto-science instead of a pseudo-science does not give it more weight but it describes it much better, linguistically. Mauricelavenant (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Your unsubstantiated assertion that I "have a vested interest in deriding astrology" is a personal attack. As for the rest, read WP:OR. Your opinion on whether astrology is pseudoscience or protoscience is of no significance whatsoever, as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. We go by sources, not opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I am NOT emitting an opinion: I have provided THREE sources that define astrology as a proto-science. The practice of Astrology anywhere on the planet clearly included the consistent observation of the sky, the recording of planets' and constellations' positions, the laborious redaction of ephemeris and so on. The ancient were quite accurate, methodical, disciplined and *scientific* about this aspect of Astrology. The fact that they may have misinterpreted the data is neither here nor there. Nobody calls Democritus or Thales a pseudo-scientist just because they reached erroneous conclusions, do they? You have rejected the Wikipedia source that clearly defines astrology as a proto-science. Rejecting other Wikipedia articles as valid references only serves to undermines the credibility of the whole project. If the Wikipedia proto-science article does not constitute a valid reference to substantiate my claim, what is the value of any Wikipedia article? In view of this, to refute the edition of ONE single word seems motivated by something other than a fair representation of the truth, hence my comments. Unless you claim to a privileged relationship with the truth, I am afraid this does not stand the test of critical scrutiny. Mauricelavenant (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Firstly, we never cite Wikipedia as a source for article content, as a matter of policy. As for your sources, both Citizendium (which has no relationship with Wikipedia) and Wiktionary are derived from user-submitted material, and thus unsuitable as sources. Not that it matters anyway - we don't base articles on passing definitions when we have material which discusses a subject in depth. As for the rest, regardless of whether astrology might possibly have been seen as a protoscience in the past, our article makes it perfectly clear that it is now seen as pseudoscience by the scientific community. Which is what our article says. Anyway, you have failed to provide the necessary material to justify changes to content which is backed by multiple credible sources agreed after much discussion involving multiple contributors, and on that basis, and because you continue to cast aspersions on my integrity, I am done here. I see no point wasting my time discussing matters with individuals incapable of civil discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Again, I quote the relevant passage in the protoscience article for your information: "All sciences would have qualified as protosciences before the Age of Enlightenment, since the scientific method still hadn't been developed, and there was no structured way to prove legitimacy. A standard example is alchemy, which from the 18th century became chemistry, or pre-modern astrology which from the 17th century became astronomy." If you really think this is inaccurate, why don't you have this article modified as well in the interest of coherence? Don't you have a problem with the fact that the protoscience article defines astrology as a protoscience and links to the astrology article that describes it as a pseudoscience? This is clearly incoherent. There are countless Wikipedia articles linking to other Wikipedia articles that contradict each other, particularly in terms of historical dates that often do not match. In response to your latest post, it would be more accurate to present astrology as a proto-science as well as mention the fact that it is now perceived as a pseudo-science by the scientific community. How can you dismiss "The Cambridge History of Science" on the basis that it refers to 17th century India? The latter fact is totally irrelevant since the practice of astrology was not localised. Do you need references for every country? Why not for each single town, as well? This Wikipedia article is inaccurate, a gross misrepresentation, and an insult to our forefathers without whom you wouldn't have a computer to spread the disinformation you seem so attached to. Aside from the misleading terminology, it fails to provide any historical background worthy of the name. It even fails to mention the father of Western astrology and remains conspicuously silent on countless practitioners: from Ptolemy to Tycho Brahe, to Kepler and Newton to name but a few. What a joke! Again, check these facts for yourself in the Wikipedia and elsewhere; the evidence is overwhelming. This should suffice to provide the "necessary material" that you are demanding on the basis of doubtful authority. In view of this, it is not only your integrity that is in question here, but that of the entire Wikipedia project. I am equally fed up with your dogmatic and obtuse approach that runs contrary to the spirit of science and to the furthering of knowledge. If such is the attitude around here, I am also done contributing and donating to Wikipedia. You can now pat yourself on the back for "being right" and for discouraging a contributor on his first attempt. Well done, Sir! Mauricelavenant (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I have to agree with Andy here. You seem to be trying to legitimize those elements of pre-modern astrology that were later discarded as useless junk, those that were not at all protoscientific. And you seem to be quibbling on the former use of the umbrella term, which included pseudoscientific astrology toghether with protoscientific astronomy. Sorry, but Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and Newton are respected for their contributions to astronomy. They are respected IN SPITE OF their silly and unenlightened dabbling in astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I have clarified the protoscience article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Maurice, the question is not what Astrology was, but what it is. Once the theory that "celestial bodies" have a direct, observable and specific compound influence on human lives and even non-living objects has been thoroughly refuted, Astrology ceased to become any sort of science, proto- or otherwise. If you wish to refer to it as such in a historical content that is well and fine, but as far as the present is concerned that is no longer the case. François Robere (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I am not disputing the current, official scientific perspective on astrology here although, it seems that current researches might well change this in the not too distant future (see links below for references). There are nonetheless several issues at stake here and the question is not at all to legitimise the "junk" aspect of astrology. Firstly, it is quite clear that, prior to the emergence of the scientific method, no particular distinction between astrology and astronomy could be made as these disciplines were merged and undifferentiated, which is what a protoscience is, by definition. Practitioners were engaged in the observation of the sky and recorded scrupulously their observations which clearly qualifies their practice as a protoscience that later gave rise to modern astronomy, once the "junk" was redacted out. The same applies to alchemy that also contained a fair amount of "junk", which, once redacted out, became chemistry. This much is clearly said on the wikipedia protoscience page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience This is further confirmed on the Wikipedia page concerning Alchemy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy which says: "Western alchemy is recognized as a "protoscience" that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine" REGARDLESS OF HOW ALCHEMY IS PERCEIVED TODAY! Thus, in the interest of fairness and coherence, it would seem that the page on alchemy should either be edited to describe alchemy as a "pseudoscience" or the astrology page should describe astrology as a protoscience. To have it both ways is highly suspicious and seems fairly biased and unfair. While some may think that I am quibbling on terminology, I really think words matter, particularly in an encyclopaedia. To describe astrology as a pseudoscience conveys the notion that it contributed nothing of scientific value whatsoever which is patently untrue. It contributed exactly the same considerable and valuable body of knowledge to astronomy as alchemy contributed to modern chemistry and medicine. To come back to the alleged effect "celestial bodies may (or may not) directly have on human lives and even non-living objects", current research is unearthing previously unknown effects that might well explain previously poorly understood phenomenon. Please, read a summary on the following pages, for further insights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 http://prof77.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/dna-replication-at-a-distance-reported-by-nobel-scientist/ http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110428/full/news.2011.252.html http://www.papimi.gr/poponin.htm While I would agree that these findings do not in any way support any "astrological effect", they could nonetheless reveal previously unknown mechanisms that may well explain a range of phenomenon that science has, so far, rejected for lack of an explanation, as pointed out by the scientists who have conducted these researches. Mauricelavenant (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC) '...these findings do not in any way support any "astrological effect..."' That's right, they don't. Wikipedia articles are based on the consensus of reliable sources, and at present the overwhelming scientific consensus is that astrology is pseudoscience. In the unlikely circumstance that this consensus ever changes, Wikipedia will revise the article accordingly. Until then, we aren't going to revise it on the basis of speculation and irrelevances. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas, and nor does it engage in speculation about "previously unknown mechanisms" - if you wish to promote this you will have to do so elsewhere. Wikipedia policy is absolutely clear about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Andy, you seem to suffer from an acute case of selective reading. Why do you ignore the main point and focus exclusively on the last part of my post that was included only as an example to illustrate a point? The point being that science is capable and willing to review the principles it's based on in the presence of new evidence. Science is not a dogma although the attitude of some scientists and its followers can often err in that direction, unfortunately. How do you think alchemy would fare now if it were scientifically tested for its literal ability to transmute lead into gold? We all know the answer to that: it would overwhelmingly qualify as pseudoscience TODAY. In spite of this, alchemy is still given its due credit for its past achievements in Wikipedia. That much is clear. It seems that there is a fair amount of confusion and misunderstanding here that I am happy to clarify: Science has served as a useful method to differentiate disciplines further and further (eg.: biology further differentiated into molecular biology as well as many other branches). Prior to this, most of our knowledge was merged under the label of umbrella disciplines. While science provides a brilliant tool to assess exoteric reality, I would argue that it is totally incapable of assessing the esoteric dimension, in its current stage of evolution (hence, the inclusion of several links apparently showing some progress in scientifically assessing previously unseen phenomenon). That being the case, the exoteric aspect of alchemy was given recognition under the name of chemistry and the exoteric part of astrology became astronomy while the esoteric aspects became increasingly derided and discarded over time. However, there is little doubt that the esoteric aspect of alchemy and astrology still retain some validity that cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. The esoteric dimension has been thoroughly studied and well understood by scientists such as C.G Jung et al. For example, in "Psychology and alchemy", Jung demonstrated that the esoteric branch of alchemy was primarily concerned with the unification of the psyche, the process of individuation. In this context, turning "base metal into gold" is not to be taken literally, but as a metaphor used to describe a psychic process. Jung took the same approach with astrology in "Synchronicity". Hence, it would be far more accurate to say that the exoteric aspect of alchemy gave rise to chemistry and medicine (to an extent) while its esoteric aspect is one of the roots of modern psychology. Similar conclusions can be reached about astrology. Now, the Wikipedia editing cabal can either decide to give credit to these disciplines in their own right and present such evolution and differentiation in their articles or, it can continue to promote the suppression and the deriding of their esoteric aspects which would be grossly inaccurate and only demonstrate a profound misunderstanding. Mauricelavenant (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Actually Andy is quite on point. Wikipedia does reflect the current paradigm as far as representations of reality are concerned. Today no one practices Alchemy and no one claims it has any predictive or explanatory power, so today we can refer to it as a proto-science. Astrology, on the other hand, is still being practised with claims of both predictive and explanatory power, which have been thoroughly refuted, so it is by definition a pseudo-science. As for your links - this are the kind of references only people with ill-conceptions of science would bring - they absolutely do not support any claims that you made apart from "future knowledge is unpredictable". Well now, if that is the case we should as well treat dragons as a taxonomical phylum, just to be "future-proof". As for your "clarification" - it is simply irrelevant. Bring a proper source that states the Astrology is not a pseudo-science, and it will be considered; otherwise I would suggest being satisfied with the description of Astrology as a past proto-science, current pseudo-science. François Robere (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I am afraid you are quite mistaken about the current practice of alchemy, particularly the Chinese brand of the discipline. Alchemy is alive and well and still practised today, in its esoteric and exoteric forms. There are millions of Qigong practitioners all over the world, practising exercises and meditation techniques designed to promote psychic balance, longevity, health and well-being. There are numerous Qigong masters working today in Traditional Chinese Hospitals obtaining *significant and measurable results* with the patients they treat by projecting their Qi. For your education, please take the time to watch this video of a 118 years old man as a living proof of the power of the correct practice of Chinese alchemy today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRuansCVV3U So much then for your claim that alchemy is not practised today and, as such, has no predictive or explanatory powers. I have yet to see a 118 years old person demonstrating the same abilities after a lifetime of care under the system of scientific medicine. All humans who make it to that advanced age are physical and mental wrecks pushed around in a wheelchair and stuffed with a cocktail of chemicals the actions of which is poorly understood. Acupuncture is also totally rooted in Chinese alchemy. Please, refer to the following documentary for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vRh0r0yRBg If you'd care to watch it, you will see a young woman undergoing 6 hours of open heart surgery under acupuncture anaesthesia and perfectly conscious. Now then, if alchemy had no explanatory or predictive powers, no one would attempt such a procedure since the outcome could not be predicted. The fact is that it has clear and undeniable predictive powers that cannot be explained by western science but CAN be explained by alchemical logic, provided one is willing to study it, assimilate its principles and take it on-board. If you really want to describe the *current paradigm in its entirety*, the current practice of alchemy should and must also be included, unless you think the scientific paradigm is the only valid one, which is patently untrue. In view of this, I now feel entitled to ask for tangible proofs that the editing team working on these topics is actually qualified to do so. Who are you exactly and on what authority do you feel entitled to publish such misinformed perspectives? Concerning the links, it seems to me that, being a Nobel Price of Medicine, Professor Montagnier's current researches are not particularly ill-conceived. The sources you keep demanding have already been provided and systematically rejected. I would agree with your approach to define astrology as a protoscience now perceived as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. Mauricelavenant (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you've wandered so deep into WP:OR territory that your statements and suggestions do not make any sense at all in terms of our policies and guidelines. Unless you formulate a concrete proposal to change or expand the article based on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and consistent with our policies and guidelines, you will not accomplish anything here. The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It's also worth reading WP:NOT, as you seem to have problems understanding the nature of WP, and also WP:HISTRS for more on sourcing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Just to add for your own education; there has never been a man verified to be 118 that I am aware of. Someone claiming they are 118 does not make them 118. For evidence of how easily you have been duped, the BBC show you rely on doesn't mention the "powerful sedatives and large doses of local anaesthetic that were used during the surgery" [8]. Be less credulous when you watch TV, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC) I agree with both of you. This is getting strange, and not better. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) You are repeatedly ignoring my questions and missing my points. It is factually self-evident to anyone with half a working brain cell that astrology is a protoscience and, as such, does not require any further evidence. If you cannot see that, I can only conclude that the policies you mention are only there to serve an agenda at the detriment of the facts - a worrying position. If 5,000 years of empirical observations supporting Chinese Medicine, alchemy and astrology qualify as "Original Research" or "Fringe Theory", then I am out of here. Meanwhile, I hope you carry on enjoying yourselves editing articles on the hypothetical graviton, the 11 dimensions of the M-Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and other such like "fringe theories", that have no basis whatsoever in reality other than in the mind of theoretical physicists in their desperate attempt to finally reach a unified theory of the universe. But hey... that's "real science". Mauricelavenant (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) "5,000 years of empirical observations supporting ...". Pull the other one, it's got bells. 5000 years of anecdotes does not constitute empirical observation. Astrology is non-empirical (i.e pseudo-empirical) by its very nature, empiricism in astronomy does not imply empiricism in astrology, and if they were doing Randomised controlled trials 3000 BC for chinese "medicine" that is news to me. I suggest you even give a cursory glance into the relevant philosophy of science Astrology_and_science#Philosophy_of_science and that article in general, lest your nonsense leak out and spread further. That a concept is very old does not mean it is correct or not moronically stupid in the light of what we now know. The problem is that you are trying to base changes to articles on your flawed original research which is not acceptable on wikipedia. We only give weight to material discussed by reliable secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Mauricelavenant, as a so-far uninvolved editor, I wanted to jump in to reply to this statement of yours: "It is factually self-evident to anyone with half a working brain cell that astrology is a protoscience and, as such, does not require any further evidence." At Wikipedia nothing is considered self-evident, and everything requires reliable secondary sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Maurice: Actually you've been ignoring the answers that were given to you. Try to keep calm and actually consider. 1. By the very definition that you refer to a proto-science is such so long as it hasn't evolved into a science. Since Astrology eventually DID evolve into a science, practising it today is no longer scientific or proto-scientific. The other definition in that link refers to falsifiability and predictive power - a proto-science is not yet falsifiable and its predictive power is yet to be demonstrated. Astrology is both falsifiable AND has been falsified - that is, shown to have no predictive power. By the very definition that you referrred to Astrology is a pseudo-science, since it's still practised long after having been falsified, and long after giving rise to Astronomy. It WAS a proto-science BEFORE Astronomy, now that it's disproven and a TRUE science rose from its ashes, it cannot be practiced with any claim of legitimacy. That is the difference between a proto-science and a pseudo-science by your very admission. 2. Alchemy and Qi-Gong are far, far from being the same. Alchemy as it us known in the west and as the branch that lead to the development of Chemistry has been long gone. 3. Nothing is self-evident but Descartes's reasoning that Cogito Ergo Sum. "Self-evident" is just a way of seeing "that's what I believe" without actually needing to explain anything. 4. Wikipedia IS about accurate information and scientific and cultural consensus, which at this time defined Astrology as a pseudo-science. Think otherwise? Back it up with references. Mind you, "citizenium" isn't a reference since by its own acknowledgement it mirrors some content of Wikipedia. 5. Blood-letting, oral administration of mercury, urine drinking, medicinal animal sacrifice, crude oil baths and many other therapies have as long a history of killing patients as the Chinese medicine has, and the anecdotal evidence is just as rich. Now, it you think any one of us ignored your claims, just refer to the relevant section - I certainly intend on doing so. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC I am well aware of Popper's approach and counterarguments can easily be provided: Paul Feyerabend stands in stark contrast and argued these topics far better that I can ever do: "Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies." No further comments. Mauricelavenant (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. READ THE HEADER: TALK:ASTROLOGY. Thus far you've a) contradicted yourself - referring to a common definition of proto-science in your second message, only to claim in your last message that it is irrelevant; b) did not supply ANY reference to back up your claims; c) did not reply to ANY of my above comments, or for that matter to much of what others have said. Please re-read and try to stay on-topic. This is NOT a "philosophy of science" or "sociology of science" forum. François Robere (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, and PS: That was a bad paragraph to quote. You should've quoted the next paragraph. François Robere (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Dear editors, It seems that the time has now come for us to bring this sterile debate to a swift conclusion. I would therefore like to offer the following closing remarks: 1. The reference demanded was provided early in the discussion here: http://books.google.co.th/books?id=KDSqLsOHc9UC&pg=PA674&lpg=PA674&dq=astrology+proto+science&source=bl&ots=hz8BoFT13f&sig=klGfW_JbnJU_gLu1s_1FhHYekfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fw2iUZyQA8qErgexnIC4BQ&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=astrology%20proto%20science&f=false "The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science.", page 674 that clearly defines astrology as a protoscience. However, the reference was rejected on the basis that it was localised, which is totally irrelevant. One basic principle of science states that, in order to prove that not all crows are black, it is sufficient to produce a single white crow. 2. I fail to locate any reliable external reference defining alchemy as a protoscience on the corresponding page. Apparently, the current practice of alchemy enjoys a better status than that of contemporary astrology for reasons that remain unexplained. 3. The editors have peddled so many staggering inaccuracies here that I now doubt any of them have a significant theoretical and/ or practical knowledge of the topics in question. In view of this, I can only conclude that their understanding is only informed by second-hand opinions and/ or scientific research that was carefully selected to suit their pre-existing negative bias. If this perception is mistaken, I would appreciate if the editors would kindly provide some reliable evidence to the contrary - I.E: proof that they have acquired first-hand knowledge from a reputable university and can demonstrate a significant working experience of the disciplines debated. A case in point is the utterly mistaken assertion that "Qigong is far, far from being the same as alchemy". Qigong is undoubtedly an alchemical practice involving exercises as well as meditation techniques such as the Fusion of the Five Elements, Small Heavenly Circle, obtaining cosmic Qi through specific acupuncture points and the external projection of Qi via specific acupuncture points such as Pericardium 8 (Laogong) as well as diet and the ingestion of traditional herbal prescriptions known to support these techniques. Further, the presentation of Chinese Medicine seems to date to past centuries when Western Medicine was equally successful at killing patients and thus, have no relevance whatsoever other than revealing the extremely negative bias of the editor. This certainly does not apply today and a well-trained TCM practitioner would never prescribe such substances or promote such techniques. Indeed, the number of iatrogenic deaths that can be attributed to Chinese Herbal Medicine are minimal, at least in Europe. The following link shows that the profession takes this problem very seriously and analyses the number of adverse reactions and deaths that are, in any case, minimal, in an attempt to prevent further problems: http://www.acupuncture.com/herbs/toxicherbs.htm This stands in stark contrast with official statistics on iatrogenic deaths associated with Western medicine: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm On this topic, the editors might care to recall the Contaminated haemophilia blood products. Perhaps equally relevant, the editors might also want to consider which "science" they will choose to believe between that used by Monsanto, the US government, and the FDA to promote the distribution of GMO or that presented by an independent team of French researchers that reached the conclusion that GMO cause cancer in lab rats. So much then for the alleged objectivity and supposed neutrality of data obtained by applying the scientific method. As for the alleged vagueness of astrological predictions mentioned in the article, I would suggest to read my published work that is neither vague nor general in its predictive content. Since these articles have been published and distributed in the printed press way before the forecast trends, there should be no controversy about the possibility of falsification. In particular, I would suggest reading this article, written in 2007 and published in early 2008 in The Mountain Astrologer: http://www.mauricelavenant.com//DOWNLOADS/PlutoinCapricorn20082023.pdf Verification of its publishing date can be obtained by visiting this link: http://mountainastrologer.com/standards/tma_index/Author_2013.pdf I believe providing this evidence largely demonstrates my integrity and my courage in the face of rabid and opinionated armchair critiques of disciplines they poorly understand. 4. My assertions and conclusions are based on a theoretical knowledge of astrology, Chinese medicine and Chinese alchemy backed by 35 years of clinical practice and practical experience. I have not reached my conclusions on the basis of second-hand opinions and/ or questionable research. 5. By quoting Paul Feyerabend, I believe I provided reliable, external evidence that science is ill-equipped to assess astrology. I am not a complete idiot and I AM WELL AWARE THAT THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (all caps intended). Having thoroughly read Karl Popper as well as Paul Feyerabend,I am equally aware of their respective perspectives. There is no need whatsoever to resort to sarcasm and claim that I quoted the "wrong" paragraph. I quoted the paragraph mentioning astrology for obvious reasons of relevance to the ongoing debate. I am grateful that the editors went on to read beyond the quote and I would suggest they should become further acquainted with Feyerabend's valid criticisms of the scientific method. 6. The evidence offered by Paul Feyerabend was NOT provided to divert the debate into a discussion on the philosophy of science. However, it was provided to demonstrate that science can be quite damaging to traditions that have performed a valuable social function for millennia. It was also provided to point out the deficiencies of the scientific method in assessing some traditional disciplines. That being the case, it would seem rather inappropriate for the editors to base their opinions and to reach their conclusions based on such an approach. Astrology should be assessed on its own merits and not by an external authority ill-equipped for the task. 7. In view of the above, I can only conclude that Wikipedia's editing cabal is bent on serving a predefined agenda at the expense of the facts. The agenda clearly promotes exoteric reality and seeks to suppress systematically the esoteric dimension of the human experience which equates to nothing less than the murder of the soul. That does not necessarily mean that the editors are acting consciously. I believe they are acting in good faith according to the way they have been programmed and educated which is also part of the wider agenda. Regardless of this consideration, the result is the same. While I would agree that differentiation is useful (differentiating the exoteric branch of astrology into astronomy or the chemistry aspect of alchemy, in this instance), there is little doubt that dissociation can only lead to disaster. Respectfully yours, Mauricelavenant (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The source [9] does not say astrology was science, but rather that astronomy was not distinguished clearly from astrology (and thus protoscience), so it can not be used to characterise astrology as protoscience in 17th century India. It is amusing that Maurice wants astrology to appear scientific, but says "science is ill-equipped to assess astrology", he wants to have his cake and eat it. Saying the opinions of Feyerebend does not constitute evidence of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I was trying to get over myself and not have the last word (re: my comment outside the NOTFORUM frame), but... okay: You've already replied to the Cambridge ref several days ago, so that's not new. Otherwise his refs are either unreliable or contradict his own claims. And yes - it is ironic that he tries to get under the cover of science only to deride it when he fails. As for the Alchemy stuff - that was the point where it became painfully clear where he's coming from, since the whole "Alchemy is actually spirituality" notion is pretty new - at least in the last couple of hundreds of years; it's not for nothing that Alchemy is considered the forefather of Chemistry, while Qi Gong is considered a martial art. And a last note: I was sarcastic but not untruthful when I said he quoted the wrong paragraph: The first paragraph, in my reading, deals mainly with the situation where proof is lacking; it's the next paragraph that deals with Astrology's situation, where evidence (or proof) has already been offered. At either case it was off-topic, as were most of his other points. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was pointless. François Robere (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent sourcing

The first paragraph is a synthesis of sources, with no source explicitly making the point "Many poets and playwrights have used astrological symbolism to add subtlety and nuance to their literary themes" These sources are unreliable:

• [10] This SPS is unreliable, and Deborah Houlding is not a recoqnised expert in literary criticism.
• [11] is a project by a collection of undergraduate students [12]. It is not published by the University of Singapore as claimed.
• The Mountain Astrologer is not reliable for literary criticism.
• [13] another SPS

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are some flaky sources around. However there is no doubt that mediaeval writers referred to such themes (indeed, they are central to Dante's Paradiso), and the C.S. Lewis book (he was a professor of Middle English as well as an author of children's books) is a solid source. I've therefore quoted him directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Using a primary source to make inferences as you are doing is original research and generally frowned upon. Considering your level of contributions you are also aware of this, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The inferences were made by C.S. Lewis himself as quoted; he is in turn using primary mediaeval sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote the exact line that verifies "... works of mediaeval literature including Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, John Gower's Confessio Amantis, and Dante Alighieri's Paradiso, made references to the astrological planets". IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediaeval literature

I'd like to add some secondary-sourced text to the 'Mediaeval' section something along these lines, as at the moment it says nothing about usage in mediaeval literature. The first paragraph summarizes Lewis's view. The second paragraph is a direct quotation, which would be one way to show a scholarly reaction to astrology in mediaeval literature. The image would neatly illustrate the section:

Works of mediaeval literature including Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, John Gower's Confessio Amantis, and Dante Alighieri's Paradiso made references to the astrological planets. For example, Chaucer illustrates Saturn's work "in promoting fatal accidents, pestilence, treacheries, and ill luck in general" in the Knight's Tale, while as C. S. Lewis explains:

'Mercury produces quicksilver. Dante gives his sphere to beneficent men of action. Isidore, on the other hand, says this planet is called Mercurius because he is the patron of profit (mercibus praeest). Gower says that the man born under Mercury will be 'studious' and 'in writinge curious', "bot yit with somdel besiness / his hert is set upon richesse." (Confessio, VII, 765.) The Wife of Bath associates him especially with clerks (D 706).' — C.S. Lewis.

Would this do as it is, or how could it be improved? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This would be a very useful addition. There is at least one book just about astrological references in the Canterbury Tales, so there is potential to add more information as we go along. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you mean Chauncey Wood's Chaucer and the Country of the Stars: Poetical Uses of Astrological Imagery, Princeton University Press, 1970? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was the book I was thinking of. There is a vast amount of commentary on Chaucer and the astrological themes are often mentioned.Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above (You have split the discussion for an unclear reason), the source does not explicitly verify the claim. Rather it is being inferred. If you believe it does, quote the specific sentence that verifies that makes the same point. The Chauncey source looks like it has more potential, For this article to become featured again, the sourcing needs to be up to scratch, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

For Chaucer see also,

• Osborn, M. (2002). Time and the Astrolabe in The Canterbury Tales. University of Oklahoma Press.

If we are going link specific authors or works to astrology we should be specific about the nature of the relationship. Otherwise it's just name dropping. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. The only value of naming them is to establish the facts, in this case about mediaeval literature. Lewis was a professor of Middle English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Revised version

Dante Alighieri meets the Emperor Justinian in the Sphere of Mercury, in Canto 5 of the Paradiso.

Here is a revised version (still awaiting Chauncey) - comments invited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

In Paradiso, the final part of the Divine Comedy, the Italian poet Dante Alighieri referred "in countless details" to the astrological planets, though he adapted traditional astrology to suit his Christian viewpoint. Dante uses astrological thinking in his prophecies of the reform of Christendom in his Divine Comedy.

The fourteenth century English poets John Gower and Geoffrey Chaucer both referred to astrology in their works, including Gower's Confessio Amantis and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. In the fifteenth century, references to astrology, such as with similes, became "a matter of course" in English literature. Astrology is especially important in Chaucer's The Franklin's Tale, though the reader may be intended to doubt the "astrological 'magic'" of the tricky "subtil clerk". The narrator of The Franklin's Tale states directly "I ne kan no termes of astrologye", ("I'm not familiar with any astrological terms").