Talk:Objective Validity of Astrology/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Page creation 2 Birth month 3 Fractals and Chaos 4 Ptolemy & Opiuchus 5 NPOV 6 Categorization 7 Cleanup 8 What happened here??? 9 Until One Learn the History, Terms & Practice of Astrology, One will Not be Able to Prove or Disprove Anything Connected to It 10 Arguments against astrology are specious 11 Astrology is not simple nor simple-minded but may not be a science. 12 Patent nonsense: 13 'Consistently of Use' is POV 14 Moved Sections 15 Apologists??? 16 Age among peer groups 17 Major Cleanup of the Views and Arguments of Astrology 18 Karl Popper and Falsifiability

[edit] Page creation

Created this page to contain the over long sections on this subject that had grown up in the main Astrology article. There is still a great need to structure the for and against arguments into a logical and easily readable article. Lumos3 23:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fiddled with the Saturn text, as there is no need to repeat what is readable in the linked article. Also, changed the statement to be more accurate from an astrophysics standpoint. Saturn has a much greater gravitational effect on the tides than on the human body, because the area of effect is a factor in the equation. The way the article read, the reader would get the impression that a car had just as much of an effect as Saturn in all cases, not just when measured as an effect on the human body.

Many of the arguments against astrology are unscientific, are easily answered, and have already been debunked, yet I find them here. I'm not sure what to do about this yet, and somehow maintain a non POV air.

For instance, the idea that one must prove a mechanism for astrology is not an idea that springs from scientific first principles. In science it is enough to prove a statistical correlation in data without regard to the mechanism. For example, Darwin was roundly criticized for not having a mechanism for evolution, even though he showed evolution to be occurring. However, Darwin was correct and these critics were wrong, even before he provided the mechanism of survival of the fittest.

Huh? Darwin came out of the closet as an evolutionist presenting that mechanism. The time period you cite, before Darwin presented his mechanism but after he showed evolution to be occurring, did not exist. Nevertheless, either a plausible mechanism or a robust correlation would be enough, but astrology has neither. --Hob Gadling July 4, 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Also, the argument against the magnetic force of the Earth affecting human behavior belies the (very scientific) biological evidence that this is true, and seems to be ad-hoc. In fact it has been shown that Earth's magnetic field can influence the sleep patterns of human beings.

Cardshark

[edit] Birth month

"Many western societies use September as a cut-off to determine the year a student will begin their education. Because of this, the average student born in September will spend his or her life with peers that are on average a half-year more mature than him or her, and similarly a student born in August will spend most of his or her life with less mature peers."

Maybe I'm just being dense here... but isn't this the wrong way round? If the cut-off is (the start of) September, then a student born in September will be among the oldest in the group. The youngest members of the same group will be those born the following August. Or has my brain just melted?

TomH

Imagine that September 1st is the day that school starts, and you have to be five years old to begin kindergarden. Therefore, if you were born on September 1st, you will begin kindergarden when you are exactly five years old. If you were born on August 31st, you will begin kindergarden the next year, at the age of 5 years and 364 days. Assuming students aren't held back or skip grades, assuming a correlation between age and height, and assuming a correlation between height in school and future confidence, then you've got at least some personality differences that correlate with birth month. --Arcadian 5 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

That's backwards, and I know it is, because I was born in July and I was always one of the youngest. Public schools don't go by your age -- they say, "People born before September 1st, 2000 go into kindergarten this year. September 1st, 2000 and after, go into kindergarten next year." Thus the oldest person in a given grade will have been born on September 1st, and the youngest on August 31st. BorgHunter 03:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fractals and Chaos

There are two statements that astrologers 'suspect' fractals or chaos theory as being behind astrology. Without some more details these are just meaningless statements - equivalent to just picking a popular theory and saying "it's something to do with that". I suggest striking them unless more explanation is forthcoming. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. - Omegatron 15:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Added link to a helpful article on this - Forfar 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ptolemy & Opiuchus

Of the 13 modern signs of the zodiac (constellations of the ecliptic), Ophiuchus is the only one that is not counted as an astrological sign because the area of Ophiuchus intersected by the ecliptic previously belonged to more than one constellation. The constellations were defined in by the International Astronomical Union in 1930 and include a portion of Ophiuchus(Serpent-Bearer) on the ecliptic, to get 88 constellations. Before 1930 some areas of the sky did not belong to a constellation, forcing astronomers to refer to "the area between constellation X and constellation Y". Some areas, like the foot of Ophiuchus, belonged to more than one constellation. The modern constellation boundaries were selected to resolve this problem, so that every part of the sky now belongs to exactly one clearly defined constellation.

The above reads to me to be justifying the traditional exclusion of Opiucuhus from the Zodiac, by implying that this constellation's role in the Zodiac is a modern invention of the IAU. This common fable among many astrologers, however, is simple not true. Ptolemy himself recognised that the sun passes through Opiucuhus (by its ancient definition)!

[edit] NPOV

controversial subject That's what is said here. The problem is, this page is to biased towards astrology. In fact, NPOV should be replaced by SPOV. There is a saying representing my argument: "People are entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts."RPGLand2000 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please state exactly what it is about the article you find NPOV or the label will be removed. Lumos3 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

I removed the category Pseudoscience and User:Lumos3 reverted my edit. While I certainly understand the reasons, I would like to point out that according to Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_subcategories, since Category:Astrology is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience, it is advised to use only Astrology and not both categories. This is an attempt to reduce the crowding of Category:Pseudoscience and not a judgement on the content of this article. Please comment accordingly. -- Ze miguel 11:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the categorization should be removed for this article. If Astrology already belongs to the pseudoscience category, having Validity of astrology in the same category and in the Astrology category is redundant. Itub 20:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

There are several redundancies in this article, and some speculation and opinion which seems unsourced, at least. I will be making some removals and merges in the near future. --Fire Star 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As a professional astrologer and a teacher of the subject; there are some rather very old conventional scientific arguments used to continue to maintain the theory of astrology as a "pseudo-science" - a term that is becoming quite outdated and is POV in my view. I would prefer a much more intelligent skpetical view and an understanding of the difference between true, classical scientific astrology and "sun-sign" popularized astrology discussed in this section. Theo 17:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work to clear out some of the loaded language, as I see it. As you point out, there are many types of astrology, and not all agree. We should have a Controversies within astrology section (as we do at the Qigong article, for example) to highlight that modern astrology is not one monolithic school of thought. We should also have a Religious views of astrology, pro and con section, as criticism of astrology isn't monolithic, either. Some modern practitioners of astrology certainly do fall under the heading of pseudoscience (of which we have a rather strict definition of here at Wikipedia, the term is misapplied in many articles, IME), but I feel that most should not. The question is, do they pretend to validity according to the scientific method? Most astrologers I know do not. I've added a link to proto-science in the article to describe historical views of astrology, at least. --Fire Star 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear FireStar, to answer your question, yes, and no. Many "astrologers" have had to be vetted by me because I also do not trust the validity of their application of astrological principles. For instance, I am a judicial astrologer, equal to being a master, or teacher of astrology and I've had battles with so-called "astrologers" who when I've pointed out stars, planets or constellations in the night skies - fail to name or recognize them. They are NOT astrologers in this view. Many fail to also apply scientific principles based on many failings - among them, an aversion to mathematics - which is ususual for an astrologer, considering its invention of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc.

On the other hand, conventional science attempts to "explain" away "astrology" and do so expressing views I consider more applicable to sun-sign astrology. Moreover, the materialist view among the conventional scientific community is spurious - considering the fact that most often than not - this community is the last to come to agreement on such matters as "global warming" and is still struggling with the fact that the Moon exercises gravitational pull on the Earth -especially during its perigee cycle.

I would love to have a section on "controversies of astrology" and "schools of thought" and "religious views (one of my specialties within judicial astrology) which is strongly connected to theology.

As for the monolethic view: yes, I fully agree with you. There is so much of this view - especially among those ignorant of astrological practice, history, etc. You wouldn't believe the shock some show when presented with the facts that Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, and Newton were all judicial astrologers. And that we can trace this practice back to Enoch, Noah and Abraham.

I will take a look at your protoscience link - which is more akin to astrology that pseudoscience and that claim. Although there are those who practice "astrology" without really practicing true astrology - some conventional scientists seem to forgot that every "logy" attached to the sciences has some kind of con practicing it - even within their own conventional scientific communities. Theo 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened here???

This article looks terrible. What happened here? --Chris Brennan 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

True. There are other problems, too, but the following essay really belongs here, not in the article (from whence I've removed it). --Fire Star 18:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Until One Learn the History, Terms & Practice of Astrology, One will Not be Able to Prove or Disprove Anything Connected to It

For some time now; conventional scientists and "disbelievers" in "astrology" continue to debate if the first science known to humanity is a science at all. Even the above "links" added to this Page reflects the continued "air of superiority" of the non-astrological "community" to disprove a science they do not practice, nor study. Before one can become quite expert in debunking such a subject, one must become proficient in the subject's history, methodology, language and techniques.

You don't have to be an automotive engineer to know whether the car will start or not. When astrologers have consistently failed to match birth charts with the individuals those charts belong to, and even failed to agree with each other on these matters, we can say that astrology has been debunked. Astrology makes testible predictions--for astrology to have any validity whatsoever those predictions would have to fare better than pure chance. They do not. To call it a "science" would at least require that astrologers could agree with each other on what those predictions are. They do not. Mystylplx 15:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And, with the study of Astrology - these are quite considerable and extend to nearly every known culture on earth. Many detractors continue to mistake "sun-sign astrology" with the true applied science. A science that bridges both the physical and metaphysical worlds. This "confusion" stems from the serious lack of study while substituting personal "belief" for acquired knowledge. This weak and lazy approach by those with pre-determined views will never lead to proper investigation of such a serious subject of astrology. Never. Such ancient detractors of astrology were once called "vulgar" because they debased that which they did not study, know, nor understand - either in theory, or more importantly, in application and practice. Issac Newton responded to such views on astrology from a "sun-sign" perspecticve with scorn, because he knew that detractors were most likely the most ignorant; easily giving them ample time to "debunk" while dutifully avoiding the ample time used for direct observation and study. This is considered "vulgar." Attempting to "disprove" astrology from a unknowledable base is fruitless and will yield nothing, but frustration, and a reinforcing of pre-conceived "beliefs." The most active non-astrological minds have attempted many, many times - and have failed completely to disprove anything. Even astrological forecasts that have come true in history continue to baffle the non-astrological mind which feeds off conventional scientific methods they depend on to "prove" or to "disprove" anything. What many scientists fail to see is that their own instruments, though unable to prove, or disprove the validity of astrology, are not yet developed as yet to do so. This is changing, and future history may indeed find conventional science maturing beyond a restrictionist view of the universe, and the earth. History shows us that nearly every known culture on this earth has practiced, and continue to practice this applied, ancient science. Many of the most famous names in history, from Plato, to Copernicus & Kepler, Newton, and even Benjamin Franklin, studied and practiced the "supreme science" and its invention of the mathematical techniques of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry to calculus - inventions of astrologers - used in calculating the positions of the heavenly bodies relative to the Earth - and their direct influences on the natural and meta-natural world. Dogmatic POV on this, or any Wikipedia encyclopedic subject, always reveals itself: it is hostile, challenges "belief" when belief is the sole responsibility of the reader: which is honest. I trust the reader, who seeks open, encyclopedic information with good links related to the subject, and subject matter. I would advise detractors who insist on narrow POV - especially inserted high in the subject matter - to first gain knowledge on the subject itself; rather than attempting to debunk via cynical treatment. A good skeptic always educates themselves on subjects unknown to them before going out on a limb to either debunk, debase, or disprove a subject. This certainly has been attempted with the subject of astrology. Tests by conventional scientists to disprove astrology by using conventional instruments and tools to weigh and measure "astrology" are a waste of time. This would be akin to trying to prove the concept of love, by weight & measure. Though we have no conventional physical proof of love: we know it exists. Detractors continue to believe that their own "oversimplication of astrology" (Sun-Sign astrology) is what professional astrologers, and scholars of the astrology - actually practice, or study. Nothing could be further from the truth. If true skeptics take a step back, widen their narrow views, and rely on honest investigation, study, and building knowledge of astrological history, biographies, and practices; many would then have much more to offer than POV based on non-astrological knowledge. Set-minded conventional scientific, or philosophical, political-correctness POV is an enemy to open knowledge, balance, yes, even positive discussion. Why? Because it bases its premise on lack of knowledge of the astrological sciences; while at the same time demanding it to be classified as a "pseudo-science." From what authority? From what position of knowledge? How can non-astrologers, with no study, experience, professional practice, demand "peer-review" when they are not themselves "peers?" If skeptical views are to be included, let them be from a point of view that is neutral. Not one that seeks to direct the reader away from open subject information. Trust the reader. The reader will decide what to believe on his/her own. The subject matter should reflect the most balanced, and neutral point of view with valuable encyclopedic information on the subject. This includes honest debates and discussion on the validity of astrology. When these discussion take place; let them be also in an effort to learn the language, techniques, and history of the true science of astrology. Many famous and well-known people from a wide variety of disciplines have practiced the ancient science. This, in itself, should peak the interests of honest skeptics - not cynics. Why? Because a cynic sees everything in terms of "self-interest" - assuming others also do this in exclusion to anything else. These cynics could not be more wrong, yet, this is the reason for their actions via POV insertions that readers must be "led" to think against one thing or another that - matters that upset cynics sensibilities and "beliefs" which are really preconceived notions pretending to disprove a subject they will not, cannot, or have not studied in-depth. So, let those who have the knowledge shape the debate - even honest skpetics, in their willingness to learn through open minds, and not restrict knowledge due to the inability to let go of biased points-of-view. Let the reader choose what to "believe" or not to "believe" and follow the Wikipedia standard. This is always the best route. Knowledge wants to be free. Theo 10:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against astrology are specious

I am an amateur astrologer. I began examining astrology in 1976 with the intention of proving or disproving, to myself, the validity of astrology. I have not been able to do either. I assert that nobody has.

Many of the arguments presented against astrology are based on false premises. For example, some will arguse that astrologers are obviously deluded because they do not take account of precession of the equinoxes or the actual breadth of the constellations when considering the placement of the planets against the backdrop of the stars.

What the these arguments fail to understand is that astrology and astrologers make no claims about the constellations. Rather, the names of constellations have been used as a convenient set of names for the division of the 360 degrees of the ecliptic. Those who make these arguments should observe that the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are also named for constellations, even though the position of the Sun when it reaches the Tropics does not correspond with the 0 degree positions of those constellations.

Simply put, this is a naming convention.

As to the argument that the planet could not effect any measurable influence over a human being, or at least no influence more significant than a large terrestrial body such as a car or a building, we agree. However, that argument assumes that astrology is based on such a belief. It is not.

For centuries people have tried, unsuccessfully, to discover a rational argument to explain a causal relationship between the planets and astrology. Whether or not there is such a force is unknown. But that question misses the point. It is not incumbent on asrologers to explain a causal relationship, only to observe that there seems to be a correlation between some astrological symbolism and reality.

We can observe, for example, that music has an effect on people. A given piece of music will not always have the same effect. Yet, we do not question the validity of music, nor seek to refute it on the basis that it cannot possibly have an effect because physics cannot substantiate such an assertion. And although music is generally considered an art form, the is certainly much science involved.

Finally, although I could go on at greater length, it has been observed by many opponents of astrology that it is an imprecise art, inasmuch as the practitioners of astrology have failed in their predictions, as can be easily demonstrated. The same arguments can be also be applied to the medical arts, in which practitioners frequently render diagnoses which prove to be inaccurate.

Astrology, like medicine, is not a precise science. I agree. But the arguments that are presented in this article do not exhibit scientific or even rhetorical rigor.

Your faithful servant,

Murray Maloney murray@muzmo.com

Well, everyone has their own opinion on the subject, as do I. One of the things we look for in an article like this are arguments that are well known and sourced from the public domain. We should report them in the article, not comment on them ourselves (in the article). --Fire Star 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology is not simple nor simple-minded but may not be a science.

I am an astrologer who has been practicing for about a decade. I have read quite a bit and have become fairly frustrated with the way in which most modern Astrologers approach the concept of mechanism. It is not enough to simply suggest that there synchronicity is the only requirement for validity and it is even more preposterous to assume that Pluto has some effect on us either gravitationally or electromagnetically. To even attempt to answer this question, one must look back at the cosmology under which Astrology reached its heyday (I am thinking of the Arab astrologers and their successors in Renaissance Europe).

At this time, it was widely believed that the personality and inward life of a person mirrored the external life of the person. In other words the world and the psychology were mirrors of eachother. The idea is that these appear from a common root, so what we see in the sky correlates with what we experience inwardly and other things we may experience in life. This is the same principle under which all other divinatory systems work. In this essay I will discuss what is wrong with many of the objectios to astrology in this view.

1) Accuracy of predictions: Astrological charts are extremely complicated, and there is always more to the chart than one chooses to read. For example there are little-used techniques such as parans with fixed stars or arabic parts. The astrological prediction is therefore only as good as the astrologer and the amount of time he has to read the chart.

2) Mechanism: The absense of a mechanism recognized by science may well have to do with the limits of scientific enquiry. Science has nothing to say on the nature of Godhead, for example.

3) Question of Distance: Actually there are mechanisms in astrology that accomplish much the same thing. Just that they are little used techniques such as determining whether a planet is slow or fast in apparent motion.

4) Astrological and Astronomical Differences: A common mistake is to see the stars as central to astrology. Instead the spherical geometry of the sky is the basis. One starts with the equator and the ecliptic and derives the tropical zodiac. Then if one uses fixed stars, then these are projected either by paran (a more complex process often involving the horizontal great circle) or by simple polar projection to a point on this zodiac. In other words, the central aspect to astrology manifests in the months and the seasons, and the rest falls into this model.

5) Zoodiac mismatch: Well.... What can one say on this one? Modern *tropical* astrology starts with the seasons and works from there. Most ancient civilizations had a sophisticated system of helical setting stars to determine the seasons. But these would have wondered and would have needed to be adjusted for basic agricultural reasons. So which one needs adjusting?

6) Why time of birth and not conception? Sure a conception chart might give some clues too. But the moment of birth is the most important transition a human makes (except perhaps death), so it makes sense.

7) People with close times of birth born close to eachother will not necessarily have the same future. The stars neither impell nor compell but describe in abstract ways. What we choose to do with our lives is up to us, and we can even impact some aspects of our own astrology, such as where a given solar return takes place.

8) Many of the other concerns can be addressed simply by the fact that astrology is *less* complex now than it was four hundred years ago. Sure we have more planetary bodies but how many people look to arabic parts? How many people use fixed stars? How many people know what prefection is in astrology? Astrology has fallen greatly in its comprehensiveness.

9) Finally, concerning immutability.... I suspect that there are probably some great events in mundane astrology that are close to being immutable. But on a personal level, we all have choices to make. Some of these choices can affect future predictions. For example, if I choose to move to, say, Siberia, this will affect my solar return charts while I live there. Secondly, I think that even on a personal level, there are aspects of ourselves guiding us to things that we are not fully aware of. We have a great deal of freedom but it is not absolute.

--Einhverfr 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 traps when putting the word Astrology in the same sentence with the phrase "scientific method." 1 - The scientific method is only as competent as the latest developed research tools being used objectively. Proficient Astrologers have been kicking ass for 5000 years. That's why Dutch challenges using only mediocre Astrologers doesn't prove or disprove anything. Do you want your next brain surgery to be conducted by only an average surgeon? Each subsequent development of the hard sciences does NOT threaten Astrology! In fact, if you read Michio Kaku or Brian Greene, you'll see that Hyperdimensional Space (hyperspace) theory seems to get even closer to lending credibility to explaining how and why Astrology works, ie. that the obsolete theory of "gravity" doesn't explain the portent of the outer planets in providing pertinent insight to to understanding a natal chart, but hyperspace tells us that the outer planets are traveling VERY fast and that it's there SPEED which makes them significant, not their mass. 2 - So, until the research tools are up to "speed", there's another completely legitimate term us Astrologers on the defense can use against the unethical half-truth debunkers: "experiential." Andrew Homer 22:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrologers have been "kicking ass" at exploiting the Forer effect for several thousand years. In the beginning they benefited from the link between astrology and astronomy--if they can predict eclipses then they must be on to something. I mean, that guy over there? He reads the way the guts spill out and seems to be right a lot... kind of....

But that guy! He said the sun was going to go out tomorrow.... and it did!

Who, in the ancient world, are you gonna trust to tell you whether your wife is cheating? The one who's sometimes right and sometimes wrong? Or the one who is sometimes right and sometimes wrong but was right about when the sun would go out....? Mystylplx 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent nonsense:

A number of hypotheses have been put forward concerning the mechanism behind astrology:

Fractals - Some astrologers suspect fractal associations between the geometry of events in the sky and those on Earth.
Chaos theory - It could be argued that the mechanism behind astrology might operate less in terms of Newtonian laws, and more in terms of chaos (e.g. a butterfly flapping its
 wings in Brazil leads to a tornado in Texas). How this makes it possible for astrology to predict anything accurately is unclear.

That makes me downright shudder. The fractal reference was originally added here, which the editor (user:Lumos3) got from here, an edit by an anon user with a bit of a spotty record. If there's no objection, I'll remove it. If you don't think it's patent nonsense, read up on fractals. It's a complete non-sequiter. --AK7 02:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove unless a publication source can be found and cited. If its a published opinion then even though its may be nonsense Wikipedia should describe it as a Point of View. The same goes for the other mechnism theories.Lumos3 08:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I'm looking on google... if a fairly prominent astrology website has it I'll leave it be. I am, however, working on a rewrite, for the following reasons:

1. There is lots of repetition in the article. For example, the "arguments for astrology" section also contains the rebuttals, many of which are then reiterated in the "arguments against astrology" section. This is uncessesary; a better organization would be a concise summary of the debate at the beggining, two sections which present the viewpoints of astrologers and skeptics, and then a presentation of experiments or observations- data, essentially- about astrology.
2. There are also large tracts of this article that belong only on the astrology page. This page is solely about the validy of astrology; it is uncessessary to explain in great detail what astrology is, for that belongs in the original astrology article. There should be a one-sentence explanation of astrology at the beggining and little else (Astrology, or the study of blah blah blah, has long been used to predict...)
3. The "arguments against astrology" is currently sloppy, too many subsections with not enough material. The rewrite is available here but I am not done with it yet. --AK7 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your above points. Go ahead and edit. There is no need to go too far on you forked article. Lumos3 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "fractal associations"+astrology yields only wikipedia and mirrors. Fractal+associations+astrology yields the same pages, some math pages, and a few pages that mention all the terms but in different sections. they're never mentioned in the context of each other within a well-made or major site. The rewrite is more or less finished; I'll leave it for at least 24 hours for anyone to edit and I have to spell-check it and do some formatting anyway.--AK7 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the issues with this page, especially in the pro-astrology section, stem from the rediculous editing campaign carried out by User:Theodore7 over the past few months before he was banned. I will attempt to clean up that section once you post your new version, but it may require quite a bit of change from the look of it. Perhaps you should leave that section to me instead of spending too much time trying to clean it up? --Chris Brennan 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Macbeth? This seems spurious and distracting.

I agree. I removed that reference for now. Aaronwinborn 18:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Consistently of Use' is POV

I changed "If scientific method is to be rejected entirely, then astrology has to abandon all claim to being a science and of offering anything consistently of use." to "If scientific method is to be rejected entirely, then astrology has to abandon all claim to being a science." Since when has a method needed to be a scientific method in order to offer something consistently of use? Motherhood, under that argument, should be declared to offer nothing consistently of use. For that matter, since when has the scientific method consistently offered anything of use? Of course, to be fair, many people believe, for example, that Agent Orange, Nuclear weapons, and DDT are of great use. - Aaronwinborn 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Consistently of use" is perhaps poor diction. I think the point was that it lacks consistent, predictive power. Nuclear weapons may not be "of use" in the sense of providing a "good", but a nuclear engineer can predict, for example, whether a particular bomb design will succeed. Marskell 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Sections

I moved the subsections about age in schooling and the thirteenth zodiac sign to their proper place under arguments against. -- Aaronwinborn 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A 13th Sign is NOT Astrology ("western" Astrology has ONLY 12 zodiac signs and it ALWAYS has), so putting such a spurious article on a page of "straw man" lame arguments by under-informed debunkers is to be expected. Andrew Homer 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologists???

I changed 'apologists in favor of astrology' to 'proponents of astrology'. From wikipedia's apologist: Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. -- Aaronwinborn 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age among peer groups

This bit sounds interesting. However, it also sounds like original research. I'd never heard this argument, and a quick search on google only showed this wikipedia article. I'm inclined to remove it, but would rather not, since there may be some validity to the argument. Could someone put in a reference here? - Aaronwinborn 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, and to do a bit of my own original research, roughly two-thirds of students born in September will have their sun-sign as Virgo (the others Libra), while two-thirds of students born in August would be Leo (with the others Virgo). By the arguments in this section, "the average student born in September will spend his or her childhood and adolescence with peers who are mostly younger", I would assume they would "correlate this with assertiveness", while those born in August, who "spend this time with peers who are mostly older" would not be as assertive. Yet according to astrology, it would be Leos who would be more assertive, whereas Libras would be less so. The Virgos caught in the middle? My understanding would be that Virgos would tend to be introverted and analytical. If there are any references to studies, or even arguments for or against this theory, I'd love to see them. -- Aaronwinborn 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The intent of this section is unclear to me. 1) It seems to assert that being a few months older than the people around you gives you some kind of advantage. I realize that many teachers and parents worry about the age difference stuff, but if there are studies that suggest that's important, they should be cited. 2) I never had the sense that "diplomatic" Libras and "logical" Virgos were the assertive signs ... what about Aries and Leo for example? What about kids who are a geniuses or bullies born in July? 3) No astrologer worth their salt would suggest that Sun sign alone is *that* important in assertiveness. The author makes that assumption. 4) I guess that the author is sorta maybe *trying* to imply that perhaps there may be stronger influences associated with being born in those months than Sun signs. If there's something to the argument the author's trying to make, it's not clear and it's not supported. The section is muddy and inconsequential and would probably be unmissed if it went away -- even by the author. We've already put more time into trying to decipher it than they did writing it. -- Twang 16 March 2006

I agree this section doesn't work. It's an interesting idea, but would need to be more well worked out. My impression is that most school systems start children in kindergarten the year they are or turn five in September. In those systems children born in August would not start untill the next year and would consequently be older than most of their classmates. But even if that were not the case the August born children would only be at most two months younger than their September born classmates, and both groups would remain among the youngest in the class as a whole. Mystylplx 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Although every education system that has an annualised cohorting system will encounter this mixing of a minority of younger or older students, there is absolutely no scientific basis in the educational psychology texts that I am aware of for any correlation between birth sign, age, peer socialisation and resulting assertiveness/passivity. If I were more assertive, I would delete this paragraph. David91 12:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I have definitely read research papers that correlate kids' birthdays vs their school performance. Since extroversion is often correlated with better performance, it would surprise me if no such studies [birthday vs extroversion in grade year] were available. At the minimum, you could string together those two findings and make a case. When you're 5years old, half a year of development can make a big difference. As far as personality effects go, imho personality is not a science in the sense that physics is. For example, to say someone is an extrovert ignores the complexity and fuzziness of the measurement. From my vantage, I see both personality and astrology as interesting more for symbolic introspective purposes than for any science. They make introspection a bit more fun for some people, like trying to solve a puzzle: how am I not/like x? Kissedsmiley 21:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cleanup of the Views and Arguments of Astrology

As an astrologer, I found many problems in "How astrologers view astrology," "Arguments for astrology," and the introduction. I have made major substantive edits and added some new mataerial. I also added some references and links. Some of the explanations within these sections were very good and I incorporated them as well as I could. Some other parts of these sections, however, did not accurately reflect astrolgers or astrology.

A good example is the opening statement, "To those who practice astrology professionally see it as a science that seeks to investigate the influence of celestial bodies relative to the Earth and the influences therein." Besides being ungramatical, this statement incorrectly portrays professional astrologers as scientists who are researching a scientific explanation of astrology. That is not at all what professional astrologers think or do. In the "Arguments for astrology," part of the Mars effect section tries to point out problems with the Mars finding, using a highly skeptical POV.

I have tried to address how astrologers view some of typical criticisms of astrology that are continually put forward by skeptics. I believe that most skeptics already know the counter-arguments of astrologers, but choose to ignore them rather than respond to them.

Piper Almanac 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Piper Almanac, perhaps you could re-cast the Lead sentence "Astrologers study the patterns of celestial bodies compared to earthly events and use their recorded knowledge to forecast potential situations that could be experienced and subtleties to awareness and decisions that would otherwise be missed"? I'm sorry, but I can't understand the italicized bit. Er, forecast subtleties to awareness and decisions... what? or? Bits of older version accidentally left in? Could you clarify, please? (I have a bit of trouble with "forecast" together with "potential situations" also.) Bishonen | ノート 09:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, yes I tried to reuse what was there before, but it wasn't very clear. Thanks for your input. Have another look now. Piper Almanac 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a little unsure about the connections between the words, so I unpacked it a little further. Maybe I got it a little repetitious, but the Lead needs to be extra easy for all readers. Please review to make sure I didn't misunderstand. Bishonen | ノート 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Good! Thanks. Piper Almanac 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

McCready, Many thanks for the many edits. It reads better and agree with the removal of the science references. Piper Almanac 04:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumos3, you seem to be an astrology skeptic. I kept your paragraph on Western sidereal astrology (after I revised it) in How astrologers view astrology, though it would have probably be better in the How skeptics view astrology section (where I would not revise it). I'm thinking about deleting it because sidereal astrology is such a minority view in Western astrology and so difficult to justify that this paragraph seems irrelevant. Can you please clean up the skeptic sections? Piper Almanac 00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a skeptic of tropical astrology though not of astrology itself. I dont see why the defence of astrology should be a tropical one only. Siderial offers stronger and more consistant arguments for . Lumos3 08:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumos3 I agree that the hemisphere issue is a good argument that is still waiting for a good explanation. Should s. hemisphere natives reverse the signs? Because you describe yourself as a great fan of Karl Popper and, as you probably know, Popper openly despised astrology, I think this puts you firmly in the skeptics' camp. That is why I moved your statement to the skeptics' section. Piper Almanac 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Popper and Falsifiability

"Skeptics and scientists say astrology fails to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies, and see those who continue to use it as gullible and deluded, or even charlatans."

"Skeptics consider astrology to lack falsifiability. That is, it is not possible to construct a test for astrology that it could demonstrably fail."

These quotes alude to the criterion of scientific validity developed by Austrian and British philosopher Karl Popper who repudiated the classical observationalist-inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsifiability as the means to distinguish scientific theory from non-science. He argued that a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive because it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. He also accepted efforts of error elimination by which counter-instances could be eliminated. Theories that better survive the process of refutation are not more true, but rather, more "fit."

Popper often made comparisons to Darwin's theory of natural selection and biological evolution to support his falsifiability criterion. Darwin's natural selection theory is a huge contributor to knowledge. Its application has led to many useful models and important scientific discoveries. Popper's criterion has also indisputably helped to improve scientific method by making it more exacting and logically consistent.

The interesting question I'd like to raise here is whether natural selection itself can stand up to Popper's falsifiability criterion. Has anyone yet conducted a controlled study in which natural selection is falsifiable? How is it possible to observe natural selection by controlling the environment in which it would purportedly occur? What is the criterion for determining whether the emergence of a new species or biological adaptation in such an study is the result of nature and scientifically valid? How would one know if such a study would demonstrably fail? Maybe there's something I've missed. I'd like to hear some discussion on this.

Piper Almanac 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First thought: page is a mess and becoming more so by the minute.

Second thought: to be fully accurate I think we should state that astrology fails to meet both classical induction through observation epistemology, and Popperian falsifiability. If we're making a mistake here, it's "teaching the controversy" rather than presenting the obvious off the top: astrology is not mainstream and has not been "proven" or "falisfied", period.

I have to disagree here. There have been hundreds of scientific studies done on astrology and it has been quite thoroughly falsified. Most of those studies were conducted by "true believers" who set out to prove the validity of astrology yet failed. It's interesting that the one investigation (The Mars Effect) which seems to show validity for astrology is the one that most people have heard of... while hundreds of others that show astrology doesn't work are unknown. Mystylplx 05:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My "period" was a touch didactic. What I find is that the definition can't stand still long enough to be falisfied properly. You're absolutely right there have been studies done that consistently fail to prove validity. And what ends up happening is a further loop gets thrown up. So, for instance, there was the double-blind test in the eighties (buried in here somewhere) where astrologers faired no better than chance, but of course the problem is insufficient scope, poor training for the astrologers in question, bias from the scientists, or some other bullshit. You push this far enough and you're left with stupendous statements like this from the main astrology page: "Few astrologers today believe that a causal relationship exists between heavenly bodies and earthly events." Then what the hell are we talking about? If this is truly the point that astrology has retreated to, than astrology is truly non-falisifiable. Marskell 09:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what astrologers are saying is that there is no need to have a known causal mechanism in order to map celestial events in correlation to earthly events. 128.221.4.201 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, as this page states, "astrologists are mistak(ing) correlation for causation." A fundamental underpinning of much superstition. Marskell 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Third thought: you're final ideas sound like a Reference desk question. Why not take it up on the Science or Humanities pages there? I have more to say about this personally, but am scratching my head about what to make of the 32 headlines we presently have in the article... Marskell 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the page being a mess. I've added a few headings myself, but there are still only 9 headings for the astrologers compared to 23 for the skeptics. But let's face it, this is a controversial subject. I don't see any place in the Reference desks for rhetorical questions.

After reading the views from both sides, is your view ultimately based on what is "obvious" or "mainstream" and that these are the criteria for what should be published? I think that astrologers would disagree about what is obvious. I'd like you to discuss the obvious.

Both Gauquelin and Ertel were normal scientists and the work of both is falsifiable. The problem is that science cannot explain their findings and this is cause for concern. As replications of their experiments are subjected to increasing scrutiny there are reduced expectations of genuine falsification. See "The 'Mars Effect': A French Test of 1000 Sports Champions." (1996) ISBN 0879759887. Piper Almanac 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ertel didn't replicate Gauquelin's findings. He merely reworked Gauquelins data. At least three other studies which replicated Gauquelin's experiment have failed to duplicate his findings. That includes that "French test of 1000 sports champions" you mentioned above, which did NOT support Gauquelin's conclusions. Mystylplx 05:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re "mainstream", how about the following: can you get a degree in astrology at a competent western university (and not a "history of astrology" cultural studies course, mind you, which you might find somewhere)? Would respected, cross-disciplinary publications like Nature publish astrological research? Do any gov's provide professional accreditation to astrologers as they might for doctors or engineers? I'd like to discuss the obvious too and part of the obvious is acknowledging IMHO that "professional astrologer" is a contradiction in terms. You can't be a professional astrologer any more than you can be a professional alchemist. In this sense I think astrology is rather uncontroversial. It's simply not valid. Marskell 09:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that about the French test of 1000 sports champions (I didn't read it myself), but I found some good commentary on the biases in it at http://www.planetos.info/marsfxre.html. Ertel went over Gauquelin's work in great detail and did find some sampling errors, which diminished some of the findings. However he also made a remarkable discovery, which was the "eminence effect." After screening for bias, Ertel found that the most convincing correlations, which involved more than one planet, were in Gauquelin's original test of members of the French academy of medicine. This test needs to be done again with fresh data. I don't think that Wikipedia can or should confine itself to only mainstream opinions or practices and accepted professions. If there is criticism or controversy in these areas, it's going to happen. Denis Diderot was instrumental in shifting the tide in the Enlightenment. I think Wikipedia could be equally important. Piper Almanac 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the Gauquelin/Ertel section--you mention that his study has been replicated by others using independant data, but you don't mention those replications failed to duplicate his results. The way it is written seems to imply that they did confirm his results. If you are aware of any independant verification of this (not just rehashing Gauquelin's data) I'd be curious to hear about it. Re: "professional astrologer" I don't see any contradiction there. If someone gets paid to do astrology then they are a professional astrologer. Mystylplx 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Professional", as I think the point implied, in the broader sense of accredited membership in a learned profession. I was payed to do payroll for two years once a upon a time but I wasn't an accounting professional... Marskell 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)