User:Zeusnoos/ovatalk0614

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2005 - March 28 2006 April 2006 April cont'd-May 2006

Contents

[edit] Turn your back for a month and...

"While no scientifically defined mechanism for astrology is known, none is needed to test whether it has objective validity" is:

  • A strawman
  • Logically erroneous

And the subsequent comparison to gravity is just mind-numbing. See gravitational constant. Marskell 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comparison to gravity being tedious, but why is that phrasing logicaly erroneous and a strawman? Please explain. Jefffire 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is strawmanning - it mentions a possible (scientific-ish) critique (demanding a known mechanism) and then tells how that claim is unfair. It certainly is (which makes the entire sentence superfluous, except to make a strawman attack); it would be more fair to include (only) the critique that there is no correlation found, that the claims do not check out. Instead a weak somewhat-scientific critique is introduced and shot down - making one think that science as a whole has no real critique of astrology (encouraging the fallacy that if one critique was succesful all must be). I say remove. Lundse 20:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Good explaination, thank you. Jefffire 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
'No correlation found' is a false statement. Please read the relevant literature. The 'no mechanism known' argument has been used widely within the scientific (rather, skeptic) community. If you don't like the sentence, then you should propose something in place of it. Anybody can remove, you are supposed to edit. Aquirata 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse has basically unpacked it: the points are introduced only so that they can be refuted. That's what strawman arguing is. As far as the logic goes, "no mechanism" needed for "objective validity" is contradictory and not a claim we should be making as a simple statement of fact. If you are presenting a faith argument—people accept astrology (or X, Y, Z) ahead of empirical arguements—well, OK. Some people do. But the statement that "no mechanism" is required to prove "objective validity" does not hold. Gravity might be "accepted" generically because we have some intuitive sense that a force is needed to hold people to opposite sides of a sphere; but gravity is accepted as "objectively valid" precisely because it is reducable to a gravitational constant. Gravity doesn't have twelve arbitrary houses it needs to go through to work—it works on Mars, Pluto and every observable body we know of. When astrology has a fundamental interaction that underlies it, comparing it to gravity may make sense. Until then, it doesn't make sense. Marskell 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Then by the same reasoning, would you argue that statistical evidence for which there is no known mechanism is not objectively valid? The main evidence in the article is statistical and Aquirata is correct that 'No correlation found' is a false statement. Ertel found the eminence effect in Gauquelin's data and in the skeptic data that the article tries to use to refute Gauquelin. Piper Almanac 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Answer me this. Simple: was there an historical Mars affect directly astrologically ascribed in Gauguelin's terms before Gauquelin? And yes, present a peer-reviewed answer if you can. But you can't. This bullshit that masquarades as argumentation regarding the Mars effect turns the scientific method on its head: I'll come up with any statistical deviation I can find and cling to it however and whenever you prove me wrong. Talk to anyone who has done market research—you can always find a deviation in a sample large enough. And you can almost always convince a client that they should pay 50 dollars a page for your magnificent ability to devine trends. That's the stupidity that underlies people picking up horoscopes and thinking they mean something. The only thing that can be usefully studied in Gauguelin and subsequent controversy is how not to manage sample.
And the cliff-hanger still holds: is there anything remotely resembling the gravitational constant, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, or the speed of light, that astrology has in its corner? No, there isn't, because astrology is not objectively valid. Marskell 22:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Mars has traditionally associated with athletic performance. Look in any astrology text for the past 200 or more years. Ertel found a linear relationship between Mars in the plus zones and eminence in sports. Linear is not random, but suggests something lawlike. Piper Almanac 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Slight pedantic correction, Ertel found a linear relationship between eminence and Mar in his sample. That little bit on the end makes all the difference, since it is there that it goes pear shaped. Jefffire 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Ertel found the linear Mars eminence relationship in all samples, including the CSICOP test (Zelen) and the CFEPP test (over 1000 French athletes), see The Tenacious Mars Effect. Piper Almanac 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
By "directly" Piper, I meant "Mars rising in the fourth quadranent" or whatever it is, not a "traditional association". Mars associated with athletic prowess is actually rather predictable given the way Mars figures in our mythos generally.
My reading around now and in previous discussions: Gauguelin in the 50's, a 22% deviation; the Belgian Para. Soc. in 1967 reusing data supplied by Gauguelin, 22%. The U.S. study in 79, 13%; the French in 1982, 17% (the expected rate). The U.S. study shows a deviation that is equal to the deviation supposedly debunked—you've got a problem and you'd suspect an anterior tendency to introduce bias. But the one that comes out even, despite problematics in data collection, is the only truly random sample. Am I wrong that the French test involved going to dictionaries and picking out names? "Oh hell, that's not astrology, not even science!" All I would be concerned about is: is the sample truly random. The problem is reusing Gaugelin. I read the Kollerstrom piece (and bear in mind I'm just some guy, so dismiss as you like) and my main thought was: "do you honestly expect me to believe that he 'accidentaly' sat on sample disproving himself for forty years?" Ertel "rescued" him. Well fuck, if your data is right it doesn't need rescuing. And Gaugelin's data is not "right". Any reading points me in that direction, even that of the "believers".
And all of this, even if you accept the framework, doesn't answer a lot of things. That, for instance, when the Sun goes supernova, the Earth, and quite probably Mars will be destroyed. Where the "Mars effect" then? That, given stellar movement, the constellations will cease to exist? Where Capricorn then? The constellations are the most laughable part—the constellations "exist" in the same way a bear on your wall exists when you make the shadow with your hand. Literally, constellations are shapes we make by connecting dots. They aren't actually anything.
But perhaps the terms don't apply? If you really want to say the methodological empirico-theoretical naturalism employed by science does not apply to astrology then, OK, let's not apply it. "While no scientifically defined mechanism for astrology is known, none is needed to test whether it has objective validity" becomes acceptable then because astrology is a matter of faith. This wikipedian won't quibble with calling it a faith if you want to say so in the first sentence.
In the meantime you can't have it and eat it too: when the data agrees, astrology is falsifiable and subject to "objective validification"; when not, astrology is merely some esoteric thing that only astrologers understand. No, sorry. Marskell 21:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Answers to questions raised:
  • The problem is reusing Gaugelin. I think the main point with respect to the Gauquelin data set is that Ertel found correlation where none could have possibly existed according to the 'biased data' theory. The correlation was there in all sets.
  • Mars associated with athletic prowess is actually rather predictable given the way Mars figures in our mythos generally. I don't get this: if there is nothing in astrology, it matters a hoot what Mars is associated with in myths.
  • When the Sun goes supernova, the Earth, and quite probably Mars will be destroyed. Is this a serious question? Astrology as it stands today is supposedly only operational at this time. I don't think you could interpolate to a few billion years in the future. Astrology is Earth-centered, so it is not an all-encompassing system.
  • The constellations are the most laughable part. The tropical zodiac has no relation to the constellations - you surely know that?
  • In the meantime you can't have it and eat it too: when the data agrees, astrology is falsifiable and subject to "objective validification"; when not, astrology is merely some esoteric thing that only astrologers understand. Actually, this is quite possible. My understanding of astrology is that it may have an objective part and a divinatory part. We simply don't have sufficient empirical evidence to say where the boundaries are. It may turn out that the objective part is zero, although the chances of that are rather small. Divinatory astrology supposes the participation of the astrologer (interpreter), so by definition it is not scientifically falsifiable (i.e. it is subjective and not repeatable). Needless to say, the topic of the article is the objective part.
Aquirata 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To further clarify point 3, astrology is person centered. The person is placed in the center of the universe. The astrological frames of reference, based on horizon & meridian, equinoxes & solstices, and new/full & quarter phase aspects all result from natural symmetries. Such frames of reference undoubtedly exist elsewhere than Earth. Piper Almanac 01:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To repeat/re-phrase: "the good but not great" sample troughs where the supposed Mars effect peaks in the rest of the sample. The paper defending Ertel makes that clear. I simply do not accept that Gaugelin was unaware of this, however nice a fellow he was; and this is added to long-standing issues such as urban/rural representation. If you want to defend the Mars effect, go track down data that has nothing to do with him. Again, while imperfect, the French test is the only one that strikes me as truly random.
  • I meant that if you are merely telling me this validates a "traditional association" than you aren't telling me much. I could just as easily say the Mars effect validates Roman mythology (martial prowess, combat, etc. vested in the god Mars).
  • Squarely a serious question. When Einstein adduced general relativity through Mercury's orbit he did not say "this is Mercury-centered and may or may not hold for other bodies." It holds for bodies uniformly. So astrology is "Earth-centered" or "person-centered"—right, it's a mythology. This started with Piper's defence of the Mars effect's "lawlike" character don't forget. How you put forward a law, with no deducable mechanism, based on a body that will be destroyed in five billion year, is a serious consideration indeed.
  • "Rising in Leo" or "ascendent in Virgo" are meaningless insofar as Leo and Virgo are meaningless.
  • Classic dodge and weave. If science proves me right, I use it. If it doesn't, I take my ball and go home. Marskell 08:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me first make it clear that I'm not here to defend astrology. This is in striking contrast to some of you, who are here to debunk or destroy the case for astrology. I simply want to make sure that a fair presentation is made on the basis of my understanding of what astrology is. I believe that I have a good grasp of both astrology and science, which qualifies me for this job. If any of you are on shaky grounds in either of these disciplines, I would suggest that you learn more before making any further edits.

Astrology's basic tenet, as far as I understand it, is that there is correlation between celestial and earthly events. I couldn't care less whether the traditional association of Mars to aggressiveness is validated or not by scientific means. What is important is whether there is any correlation between the position (or aspects, etc) of Mars (or any other body or point) and something else here on Earth that is being assumed independent of it by science. If we learn there is, that will advance scientific knowledge.

Science has always been torn by its two extreme characteristics. On one hand, doing science is always pioneering work, which is how new discoveries are made (Uranian characteristic). On the other, scientists become very conservative when it comes to defending their position, which means their understanding of the current state of science (Saturnian behaviour). So, ironically, today's science is always in opposition to the cutting edge of research.

Regarding astrology's Earth-centeredness, you will need to grasp that physical laws are local and universal at the same time. This may not be what you'll learn in school. Surely there is no GUT that we currently know of, and this fact already makes the case today. But even supposing that there will be a theory of everything at one point, physical laws within this system will change depending on temporal and spatial conditions. So it is with astrology in my view. The astrology we know is Earth-centered, but there is nothing in theory to prevent the invention of a Venus-centered or Pluto-centered astrology. The underlying principles will be the same, but the actual rules will be different. Aquirata 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit doubtful about your claim to be an authority on science as I see several problems in what you write here. I do not question your knowledge about astrology, but how you link it to science.
Astrology, as some see it, makes claims of certain correlations, yes. In order to test it, one would first make absolutely clear what these claims are - the problem is that they seem to be shifting around a lot. If astrology (or some subset of it) cannot find a group of predictions which they are willing to 'bet their theory' on, then they are not really engaged in science or anything testable, they are mucking about with statistics and charts.
Now, if some body of astrologers came up and said 'from your birth data we can predict your personality type with better succes than dictated by chance' that would be a testable, scientific claim. Saying that 'it works', 'people always say it fits' and similar is the antithesis of this.
About your claims above, you say that science si torn between to extremes etc. Is this Kuhn you refer to? I know it is popular to claim that science is 'conservative' and will not accept new theories. This is simply not true, unfortunately. Kuhn's examples have been questioned seriously for years and things such as relativity and quantum mechanics were altogether new, seemingly whacky and quite averse to the thinking at the time. They were also backed up by clear predictions and testable claims and as these were not falsified by rigorous tests, it was accepted. Not so for astrology, perpetual motion machines and other "weird science" - when they make falsifiable claims, they have failed.
Finally, on laws being both local and universal. This is either a tautology or nonsense - if a lawis universal, it also holds in a 'locales', of course. If I am to take that certain laws hold "everywhere" but change in some places, then you are talking nonsense. If "physical laws""change depending on temporal and spatial conditions" then something is wrong with the law and it needs to be rewritten to be universal (as Newtons was wrong, but Einsteins "more" right). But of course one could make a series of astrological laws which would be sufficiently universal and work everywhere - the problem here is that astrology as we know it deals with "when mars rises" and "under this sign"; it would have to be made over from scratch as we need concepts as general as "matter", "space" and "force" in order to generate a truly universal law.
I think astrologers should start out with trying to make falsifiable hypotheses that would work for earth, then worry about generalizing later. And no, I am not out to disprove astrology, it cannot be done, I am here to make sure the article reflects this (scientific) truth: astrologers have the burden of proof, they have not lifted it the last 2000 years - this is a rather telling fact. Lundse 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"I would suggest that you learn more before making any further edits." I'm sorry, but the fundamental POV issues on this page have occurred because its being cordoned off by people sympathetic to astrology; the Wiki can't work that way. The sentence I removed and noted at the top is a perfect example ("this is controversial, and by the way criticism of astrology is baseless").
"If I am to take that certain laws hold "everywhere" but change in some places, then you are talking nonsense." Indeed. By this logic, worshipping river sources and the Sun might hold in some corner of the globe and not others.
The conservatism of science: see Multiverse (science) and string theory. Science is more than imaginative. Marskell 13:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse:
  • I am a bit doubtful about your claim to be an authority on science as I see several problems in what you write here. Please point to the problematical statements.
That is what I did in the following, it was an introductory note. Trying to find problems with it is ad hominem, strawmanning and no assuming good faith. Lundse
  • Astrological research: No doubt it is far from perfect. Yes, many astrologers who make public statements are dodgy. However, if you want to be sympathetic to astrological research (which you will need to be in order to present a NPOV), you will first need to appreciate how current circumstances are not exactly conducive to it. Scientific treatment of astrological research tends to be authoritarian and political; astrology doesn't have the same support system that science does, etc. Rather than trying to suppress results, we should be attempting to present them as accurately as possible.
Current circumstances are that astrologers, healers and every guy with a magical story is given air time and that even well-educated people try to "prove" eg. astrology. I am not trying to suppress results for the I-do-not-know-what-time I tell you I want you to show me results, I want you to show me a prediction that has not been weaseled away from afterwards. I just want you to do it properly - the results must be repeatable and the predictions and the system they stem from falsifiable. Please reread this last sentence and try responding to it. Lundse
  • Science is torn between extremes: No, I'm not referring to Kuhn, I think for myself. As for the implications of relativity and quantum mechanics, they are still not accepted by the vast majority of the public despite accurate predictions. Surely you can't argue that all new discoveries are immediately accepted by the scientific community.
Of course I am not, I am just saying that they are with far greater speed than the usual comments on conservatism would have people believe. Scientific theory is not rigid, it actually changes on key points all the time - astrology has stood completely still (on basic tenets, not details and chart magic). And your comments on how the public view the matter are completely irrelevant. I was making a point about how the scientific community accepts new theories. Do you disagree with this? Lundse
  • Astrology, perpetual motion machines and other "weird science": There is a serious problem with lumping these together. It is like saying astronomy, the Ku Klux Klan and other "weird religions". The statement shows a basic lack of understanding what astrology is.
I disagree 100%. Astrology has come as far as homeopathy, perpetual motion, etc. Ku Klux Klan is quite a different beast and you lumping it with "weird science" shows that you have not understood the group I was trying for delineate (pseudoscience). And I actually do not have to know what astrology is - I just demand that in order for it to have "objective validity" it should be falsifiable and have been rigorously tested without failing. Lundse
  • Laws being both local and universal: Newton's laws were thought universal at the time (which was for quite some time). We know better now. They are still used for all practical purposes provided certain conditions are met. What's so strange about carrying that idea forward to astrology?
Now you are changing your claim - Newtons law was thought to be universal, but was found to be an excellent approximation for certain locales. It was not both at any time nor will it ever be. Again, you are strawmanning. Lundse
  • Astrologers should start out with trying to make falsifiable hypotheses that would work for earth, then worry about generalizing later. Agreed. But of course scientific research doesn't proceed this way all the time. Many discoveries are accidents, and justification and hypothesizing are done after the fact.
True, the hypotheses may crop up in any number of ways. Which is irrelevant, I am asking you (or anyone) to form it properly and generate falsifiable predictions from it. After a few thousand years one should think it would be time to do proper testing. Lundse
  • Astrologers have the burden of proof, they have not lifted it the last 2000 years - this is a rather telling fact. No. Astrology missed the scientific revolution. What happened for thousands of years before is irrelevant from a scientific perspective.
What does that mean "it missed the scientific revolution"? Are you saying that we can only count astrology's failure to test itself since then? If so, fine - Astrologers have the burden of proof, they have not lifted it the last 200 years - this is a rather telling fact. Lundse
Aquirata 10:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse 12:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to all editors

I am posting this at the bottom of the page because it is relevent to most of the discussions going on. Relevent Wikipedia policies at this stage of editing are WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:Reliable Sources#Whcih science journals are reputable. I will deal with each in turn.

From the NPOV policy:

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.(emphasise theirs)

As we can see the article is currently in grave violation of this. The minority view point (Astrological) cannot be presented as equal to majority (Scientific) viewpoint. Equal weight is not what we do. Proportial weight is Wikipedia policy.

From the Reliable Sources policy:

Which science journals are reputable?

A good way to determine which journals are held in high esteem without polling a bunch of scientists is to look at Impact Factor ratings, which track how many times a given journal is cited by articles in other publications. Be aware, however, that these impact factors are not necessarily valid for all academic fields and specialties.

As a rule of thumb, journals published by scientific societies are of higher quality than those published by commercial publishers, Nature and the offerings of Cell Press being a notable exception.

Keep in mind that even a reputable journal may occasionally post a retraction of an experimental result. Articles may be selected on the grounds that they are interesting or highly promising, not merely because they seem reliable.

Now I have searched the ISI's Impact Factor database for many of the journals cited as reference for many astrological claims. I have found that they do not even have any Impact Factor. This casts grave doubts on their reliable, doubts which I suspect are correct. Whilst the article mentions that they may not be an appropriate measure for all fields, a total lack of any Impact Factor at all is very damning.

I hope this proves useful to all editors. As always I recommend that you stay abreast of the policies at all times. I will begin making changes based on these policies in the morning. Jefffire 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this info.
  • Fair presentation: Now of course you will have to find a reliable source to say which is the majority point of view. Survey says?
  • Impact factors: The fact that astrological journals have no impact factors should not surprise you. Astrology hasn't enjoyed government funding and institutions for some time unlike science has. When no information exists, you will simply have to live without it until it does (just like in science). I suggest you use the guideline provided in WP policy.
Aquirata 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously argueing that astrology enjoys more scientific acceptance than science? Surely it is common knowledge that science is scientifically more respected than astrology? Additionally,it is not an acceptable excuse that the only sources you can find are not reliable sources. If they are not reliable they are not suitable. Find reliable sources or remove unverified claims. Jefffire 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, rather than trying to hijack this article for what you believe to be the skeptic POV, you should create a new article specifically for what you want, something like "What astrology means to skeptics." Your input has been valuable to improving the neutrality of this article, and I think it has come a long way, though I think you violated the three revert rule 3RR several times and often you didn't discuss or seek a consensus. Don't let your frustration get the better of you and do something drastic. The fact that you've addressed this to all the editors is a step in the right direction. Hang in there; keep talking and listening. Piper Almanac 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I have never violated the 3RR. I am not trying to "highjack" the article, I am trying to bring it in line with Wikipedian policies. Rather than resort to ad hominem attacks I ask that you aid me in this. I have explained my points clearly and shown the relevent policies to back them up. If you do not wish to follow those policies then you are free to start your own Wiki. However whilst you are here those policies have to be followed. Jefffire 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have some plan for keeping the hard work done in this article on the objective findings in favor of astrology, and the contrasts between the astrology and skeptic views, so they are available in the Wikipedia, or do you want to just make all that go away? Piper Almanac 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, I too get the feeling that your motivations are political rather than wikipedian. While you may not have violated the the 3RR to the letter, you have certainly violated it several times in principle. You have certainly gone against the majority opinion on Talk several times. You have certainly made major changes without discussing first and against the wishes of other editors. Your opinion is very valuable, but please use it to make the article better, and don't resort to any means whatsoever to achieve what you perceive to be humanity's interest. Don't let yourself be used for a misguided mission. I can assure you that life doesn't only consist of science, and science is not the arbiter of life. Once you can come to see that, your life will improve drastically. Aquirata 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing that astrology enjoys more scientific acceptance than science. I'm arguing that astrology may enjoy general acceptance comparable to science. But now you will have to show us the survey results from reliable sources. Aquirata 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly WP:NPOV is not about general acceptance, so your point is incorrect. Secondly I must object to the characterisation that is being made of me and the evangelical attempts. Please do not try to put words in my mouth or to try and convince me with appeals to emotion. Jefffire 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for admin input on the topic of RS regarding astrological journals and the interpratation of WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. Jefffire 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along?? --Chris Brennan 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article violates NPOV, particularly undue weight, by "teaching the controversy" off the top. "It's controversial, here is for and against." That is clearly not the letter or the spirit of the policy. Marskell 08:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In defence of Jeffire, I see the discussion following his initial post in this subject as veering off-topic and bordering on ad hominem attcks. Address the points: how are these articles in magazines which seem to be for people who have a vested interest in astrology already and which are used by noone outside astrology circles a good source? And we should start from the 'scientific'/majority view; even if a lot of people are thinking 'there might be something to it' that is not the same as a majority claiming it is scientifically/objectively valid.

I will support a rewrite that states that astrology is what a minority of people believe in, despite the fact that the scientific comunity is in agreement against it - but of course we should include that some astrologers care very much for scientifically validating it, hoping it can be done and have made (controversial) studies which try to prove this. And, BTW, I recommend describing the two basic roads astrology supporters can take early: either it is not a science, but 'interpretative language' etc. (no claims really possible) or it makes claims in a systematic way and purports to have found some statistical correlations (it is a (pseudo)science). Lundse 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you check the edit history of the article. You will discover that Jefffire has been far from civil in that respect, in fact violating policies many times over. He could have been reported but wasn't. So that explains the discussion here.
You are supposing that 'majority' = 'scientific'. Who says? The scientists? If you are here to write a scientific view of the objective validity of astrology as scientists see it today, there is nothing to write about. Scientists in general don't know what astrology is due to their innate bias against it, so there is nothing objective to tell from that perspective. We can try to write an intelligent discussion, but that's not equivalent to the scientific point of view.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Nothing about being scientific, is there? Now, who can write a compendium about astrology? A biologist? A historian? A rabbi? I would think that one needs to be very familiar with a subject to have acceptable and representative views about it. Would you advocate that an astrologer write articles about science?
The two basic roads astrologers can take early statement is an unnecessary limitation and not a valid argument. It is like saying that there are two basic roads physicists can take early: light is either made of waves or particles, you can't have it both ways. Aquirata 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have avoided personal attacks at all times and been nothing but civil. I have clearly and concisely explained why certain aspects of the article are not acceptable, supported those statement with Wikipedia's guidelines, and then implimented those changes. My major points regarding Wikipedia policies have not been addressed rationally. I ask that editors acknowledge those policies, their proper interpratation as well as their implications, and abide by them. Jefffire 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, I ask, what is the plan for keeping the hard work done in this article on the objective findings in favor of astrology, and the contrasts between the astrology and skeptic views, so they are available in the Wikipedia? As wikipedians our main task is to organize knowledge so that it is readily available to users. These are certainly areas that Wikipedia users are interested in. Where is this information going to go?
Astrology has a recognized body of knowledge arrived at by scientific study and published in neutral scientific journals. Chief among them is the Mars eminence effect, which has been found in all data, including the CSICOP and CFEPP data, which the article tries to use to refute the Mars effect. There is obviously a conflict in the article. Jefffire and Lundse appear to want to eliminate the conflict by removing the contradictory evidence, claiming the sources do not have a high impact factor rating and do not reflect the majority view. Exactly what are the impact factors for the Mars eminence effect, both pro and con? What is the majority view in this case? Based on the general lack of response to the Mars eminence effect, it is evident that Ertel's finding and his call for further study is currently accepted by the majority. Piper Almanac 13:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is far from the truth. The Benski study is considered much more valid than Ertel's. Ertel's data was biased, despite being collected by skeptical sources (incidently, I am now satisified over it's sourcing). The Benski study however was properly carried out using random sampling. It is the definitive study. It was published as a book, so IF's are justifiably N/A (unlike astrological journals). It is cited very heavily by sources that have long been established as reliable. Jefffire 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You miss the impact of the eminence protocol, which is so sensitive that it makes bias transparent. This is why all parties submitted their data to Ertel for analysis. It does not matter at all whether or not the data was biased. Sure, the Benski data was biased, so was Gauquelin's. That is irrelevant. They all had the eminence effect, which is independent of bias and shows a linear correspondence between Mars and eminent athletes. Piper Almanac 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstand the principals involved. The bias found within the sampling by further investigations is such that it completely invalidates the findings. Jefffire 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain better what you plan to document in the article? Piper Almanac 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, the positive Mars effect studies will be mentioned but there will be no doubt that they have been invalidated by scientific analysis and they will be given slightly less prominance in the article. Jefffire 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have given sources (such as The Tenacious Mars Effect) that are later than yours and have shown the opposite. These sources, though widely known in the concerned community of scientists, have been unanswered. Do you have some sources that the rest of us don't know about? Please tell. Piper Almanac 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And just a small note on NPOV and pseudoscience (even though the word itself is POV). NPOV policy states the following: There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. So there. Even if you categorize astrology as pseudoscience, the representation of it cannot be purely scientific. Aquirata 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this, it certainly clarifies the situation. Piper Almanac 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and factual accuracy

Please provide a justification for the totally disputed flag; otherwise, it will be removed. Aquirata 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All sources cited for the astrology sections meet the WP:CITE guidelines. Piper Almanac 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Their reliability as sources of scientific information is challenged. Jefffire 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Which ones? You have to be specific, so we can track them and provide the references. Aquirata 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I dispute the scientific reliabilty of all journals defined as "astrological journals". Whilst acceptable for sources of opinion and history, they are not acceptable as scientific sources. Jefffire 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point us to the policy that requires the use of scientific sources. Aquirata 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS. I posted the relevent section a few paragraphs above... Jefffire 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please reference properly or simply copy and paste. I have provided key statements from the RS policy in the section that follows. Aquirata 09:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

'Totally disputed' tag removed due to no response by the editor who put up the tag. Aquirata 11:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
And now restored. Address the NPOV and factual disputes first. Jefffire 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified information

Please provide a justification for the verify flag; otherwise, it will be removed. Aquirata 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the above two sections - The entire talk page is about factual information dispute and unverified claims. Jefffire 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless you come up with specific, factual and reliably sourced information regarding the flags, they will have to be removed. Try not to fall into your own sword. Aquirata 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I cite Wikipedia's own guidelines. The onus is on you to prove that your information is properly sourced and verified from reliable sources, which you haven't done. Jefffire 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep the flag up. There are still a couple of citation needed in the skeptic parts. All astrology parts meet WP:CITE guidelines. Piper Almanac 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They should all be tracked here individually. Aquirata 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disupte the reliability of the astrological journals with respect to scientific data. The sections involved should be considered unverified until referenced from a reliable source of scientific information. Jefffire 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The soucres meet the WP:RS guidelines. As a suggestion, the skeptic POV on reliable sources could be included in the introduction to the article. Wikipedia users can make up their own minds on this, and it should not stand in the way of presenting the complete information, which users already know about and expect to see presented. Piper Almanac 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Astrological sources are not reliable sources of scientific information. For scientific claims astrological sources fail WP:RS. Jefffire 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The real question is do the findings fail? In the case of the CSICOP and CFEPP, the claims failed under the analysis of eminence. Until someone shows the scientific tests reported in astrology journals to fail, they are valid. Piper Almanac 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. Until it is shown that astrological journals are respected purvayers of scientific information they are considered unreliable with respects to scientific information. It is a guilty until proven innocent position. Harsh, but neccassery for stringent encyclodic standards. Jefffire 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point us to the policy that requires the use of scientific sources. Aquirata 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please, he said they are unreliable "with respects to scientific information". That is not the same as claiming we only accept scientific sources; but when we are looking for validity and scientific tests, then yes, scientific sources and not just the "astrology monthly" magazine would be nice. You are strawmanning and being unreasonable. Lundse 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For all the skeptic POV talk about using only scientific sources, a quick review of the skeptic sources comes up short of the demands. Sources for the skeptics include web articles, blogs, Skeptical Inquirer (not a science journal), Correlation (an astrology journal), a newspaper article (also posted on the Astrological Association of Great Britian website), bad links, and books. Outside of the Shawn Carlson article in Nature and an article in a psychology publication, there isn't really much else.

Also the fact that the skeptic view is presented in some astrology sources is an indication that skeptics are aware of what the astrologers have published. Lack of response could mean either negligence or that there is no response good enough to publish. The onus is on the skeptics to respond. Piper Almanac 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper skeptical referencing is a rational concern. There is only one law here after all. I will endevear to ensure that the appropraite sections are properly sourced. However a lack of responce is more usual due to the studies being junk science. Because they are not subjected to proper peer review procedure they are published despite containing errors which render their conclusions invalid. This is why astrological journals are not suitable as scientific sources. Jefffire 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that science in general doesn't concern itself with astrological research apart from a few distinct cases. The majority of astrological research is not published in scientific journals. If we want to present an objective picture of where astrological research stands, we have no option but to cite from astrological journals where this research takes place. There is nothing in the RS guidelines to suggest that we should only quote from scientific journals. In fact, quite the opposite is true. A few points to keep in mind:
  • The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true.
  • Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia.
  • Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.
  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  • Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed.
To say that a reputable astrological journal such as Correlation is not a reliable source is simply ludicrous and shows that you don't have a grasp on astrological research. Aquirata 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. Correlation in particular is a peer-reviewed journal that has published results both pro and con, unlike the vast majority of peer-reviewed journals. Books cannot be avoided in this article and both sides rely heavily on them, for example the French Test of 1000 Sports Champions, and the more recent The Tenacious Mars Effect. There simply isn't enough top quality sources to cover what needs to go into this article. Not that I discount books at all because so many scientific ideas were introduced through books. Piper Almanac 14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
'Verify' tag moved to subsections requiring it. Aquirata 11:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New research

Does anybody have an opinion on how important this finding http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/22/solar_flare_stroke/ is in terms of the objective validity of astrology? Aquirata 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be interesting to Wikipedia readers and, although it has no implied connection to astrology and is thus neutral, it appears to support Seymour's theory. If there are medical facts, it should be considered. Piper Almanac 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Bratislava Medical Journal is probably not a reliable source. Jefffire 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably? What's the policy to say that it probably isn't? Aquirata 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the early 90's I worked as a research assistant for a professor who was involved in similar studies, particularly circadian rhythms. There are numerous studies on geocosmic phenomenon such as the effects of solar flares on human beings, animals, geomagnetic activity, etc. I recall a large number of these studies were produced in the late 80's/early 90's in a variety of science and psychology journals. I wonder if this research died out since it appears as a surprise here. It's an interesting topic, worthy of more research, but has little or nothing to do with astrology. Zeusnoos 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if you could dig up a few references to see what the state of this research is. Aquirata 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The continued disregard of editing policies by user Jefffire

Jefffire, could you please stop making unwarranted changes in this article. For the umpteenth time, you have gone against the consensus on the page's Talk page. This is against policy and must be put an end to. Aquirata 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? Lets have a vote or call in people because all I see is Jeffire and Piper trying to have a conversation, me commenting and you trying to derail it - I am sorry to be harsh but you keep attacking us and this is the way I see it. Lundse 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, please check the edit history of the article and see for yourself how Jefffire has blatantly disregarded majority opinion on the Talk page. Not only that, he made major changes to the page without discussing first here. He is definitely in violation of policies many times over.
The main problem - apart from covert agendas - is that there is so little participation here. How can a handful of people do a good job editing an article? Moreover, the people who passionately care about a subject frequently have personal motives and can not necessarily represent a neutral point of view. Aquirata 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, what covert agenda? Are you saying that those claiming to push NPOV are really pushing an "astrology is bullocks" angle? Could you please point to some specific time when Jeffire has violated policy instead of just repeating your claim? And may I ask you what you have done when he has reverted your edits - re-reverted? The only way to settle these matters is by taking the policies and talk pages seriously; where in it are your arguments best presented, I would like to check them out. Lundse 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not have any vested interest in this article at all. My only concern is NPOV. Piper Almanac has raised many good points and I am grateful for that. But your continued ad hominem is not conductive to a group project. You are free to form you own Wiki where you can follow your own rules. The software is free and easily available. I recommmend that you utilise that. Jefffire 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is the continued disregard of policies by your good self. Do you have an answer to that? Aquirata 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am implimenting NPOV policy. Have have discussed it on talk. I have proven that my points are correct. I now suspect that you are reverting for irrational, faith based reasons. Jefffire 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First, let's not have a vote. Votes are awful. That said: consensus doesn't exist on this page, Aquirata, so you shouldn't cite consensus.

We should start with structure. I have some talk headers in mind. To begin with, eliminating the silly "point", "response from" structure. A level two "Theoretical concerns" and a level two "Emperical concerns" is something to sleep on. Marskell 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, The removal of a key section without saying so on the Talk page first is against policy. The removal of a key section when other editors oppose it is against policy. These have happened several times. Reinstating a previous, long-standing state is not the same as repeatedly removing a section within minutes of restoration. Regarding arguments, which ones exactly are you looking for? Aquirata 09:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the removal of the red hair thing and the introduction of fact-problem boxes? Or are there other examples? I see Jeffire applying policy in removing something unsourced and I do not agree that when there is a lack of consensus, the thing to do is necesarrily to keep - this is a problem with how things work here, I do not think there is an easy way around it. Let me know if there are more grievous examples (and please chime in Jeffire, if you think it necesarry). Lundse 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, When you go ahead with major changes without discussion, that's not implementing NPOV policy. When you discuss changes on the Talk page and other editors don't agree with you, it doesn't follow that you can go ahead with your proposed changes. When other editors do not accept your arguments, it doesn't follow that you have proved your points correct. If you cannot accept these logical arguments, I don't see how you can even present a SPOV, let alone NPOV. Aquirata 09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse, I was refering to The scientific basis of astrology by Seymour. Aquirata 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep Seymour in. I thought we decided this. Piper Almanac 14:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire has a tendency to delete work deemed to lack citation, and he works fast at this. Please place [citation needed] tags where they belong. Finding all these removals and examining them is tedious and unnecessary work for the other editors. This task is made all the more difficult when serious edits are made without any Talk notes. There are a number of tags, placed by me, in the article. Please give attention to these. Piper Almanac 14:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring

I have completely reorganized the article to give it a better structure and flow. This is not a perfect presentation, but I think it's much better than the previous one. Known problems:

1. The case for and case against astrology subsections are not always in the same order. This is due to the historical presentation of arguments under separate headings. A reword would be required to bring the case for always in front of the case against.

2. There is no argument against Mars and red hair - no change here, just more obvious after the restructure

3. The arguments are not balanced in a few cases. Rewrite will be needed.

The heading and description for matching tests have been removed as this would introduce unnecessary complications in structure. A Theories of astrology section has been created containing Seymour's work. This could be moved to a separate article titled similarly as long as that's what our wish is. Other than that, I cut and paste the various parts of the article carefully in the hope that contents would be preserved intact. Any differences not noted above would be a result of unintentional error. Oh, I have also corrected the many spelling errors present in the article. Aquirata 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall review the changes in due time. But you have violated the 3rr by reinstating the book. You must delete the section post haste. Jefffire 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The edit history speaks for itself. Go ahead and report yourself if you like. Aquirata 14:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In the interests of civility I will chalk this up to your inexperience. But do not do this again. Jefffire 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted it. The TOC is a monster and it was not discussed. Inserting a series of empty "Arguments against" sections is an exercise in WP:POINT. Marskell 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Marskell, You have reintroduced all the bad spelling mistakes, in the interest of what? You assume that the edit was done in bad faith (against policy btw). I think you should have considered the changes (much like Jefffire) and made up your mind afterwards. The article is now much worse than before. One empty section was introduced to highlight the necessity of providing content. Reverting several hours' work shows an utter disrespect. How do you propose to cooperate? Aquirata 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask that everyone slows things down. Introduce spelling changes first, they are perfectly acceptable. Afterwards try the controversial restructuring is you please. Jefffire 14:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your first spelling correction was to introduce "no" before testable predictions—that is, a change in meaning. I think it's anon who keeps doing this, sorry I'll correct the spelling myself since I reverted. Marskell 14:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why go to all this trouble? The new structure is cleaner and highlights the need for better balancing. The old structure is something nobody agreed with. What do you mean by whitewashing arguments, btw? I didn't change the arguments one bit. If a structural change invalidates arguments, then they were bad in the first place. You are shooting the message and the messenger at the same time. This is going backwards. Aquirata 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My main suggestion is below. The edit rearranged a few deck chairs and introduced empty sections in, again, an effort at point. The fundamental problem is that this article is not balanced in terms of NPVO's undue weight and the "response" structure (however titled) is the reason.

[edit] Merging

The responses should be merged into the main points and this monstrous TOC reduced. In each case we're simply giving the last word to the rebuttal. Marskell 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to reduce this monstrous TOC, then simply change the headings into bold sentences. I think you are jumping the gun here. Aquirata 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Before merging responses, they should be balanced. That was the whole point of the new structure. I see lots of wasted effort here. Aquirata 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ya, balanced. Marskell 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize that I am actually helping to bolster the skeptic side of this article? Aquirata 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Bolstering the skeptic side" or simply making this read better would include introducing important criticisms in topic sentences. At a minimum, for instance, "These findings were in substantive agreement with the traditional astrological meanings...as they are described in any typical astrology textbook" should take "though the findings have been widely disputed" as a last clause. Similarly, if the double-blind in the 80s was really performed by an undergrad, that should be presented through a neutral statement of fact in the first sentence and the childish "the astrologers did not expect..." removed. To address problems like these, I think merging the responses is the most sensible. Marskell 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My restructuring helped you realize how weak the skeptic side is in its presentation. Aquirata 16:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What the fuck? You're restructuring helped me realize nothing. Do you have a comment on the above suggestions? Marskell 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This merging idea is good. It puts the pros and cons in closer proxminity, and using bold font will remove unnecessary headings. I agree with Jefffire - do this slowly. Piper Almanac 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say the basic idea of "arguments for..." and "arguments against..." should be removed. Present the Mars effect. Note replications. Note non-replications. And then leave it. Marskell 21:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Aquirata's burst of hard work was a glimpse in the direction it should go, and I think there may be a consensus on merging. To me, merging means that arguments for and against should not be separate topics, but I'm not so sure that just stating replications and non-replications alone are enough, because this is a controversial topic. For example, it is not enough just to say that a finding (for example Ertel or Carlson) is "disputed" and leave it at that. The article needs to describe what is disputed. This would be "argument against". Piper Almanac 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I was trying to achieve by restructuring and highlighting the deficiencies in reasoning. Aquirata 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For example...? Piper Almanac 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Examples:
  • Mars and red hair: no con argument presented
  • Zodiac and personality: 'No correlation was found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.' (insufficient argument)
  • Birthdate psychology: 'No correlations were found.' (insufficient argument)
These were the main deficiencies. Other problems included:
  • Unbalanced arguments or presentation
  • Order of arguments not consistent (for historical reasons)
  • No intro for Predicitions section
Aquirata 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No (to Piper), don't leave it at "disputed". Cite the names, give the results and their place of publication, leave it. No editorialization (i.e., it's not our place to decide on "deficiencies in reasoning"), no "for or against" section after the main. Marskell 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your meaning. So if Ertel does not have a non-replication, we leave it at Ertel? If Ertel has criticism by Geoffrey Dean and response by Ertel, do we include it or not? I hope not because that exchange was a bit ludicrous. If Carlson has a follow-up letter in Nature highlighting deficiencies in the study, do we include it or not? Piper Almanac 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You can be summative and still do justice to the history. We should mention the studies that get mentioned a lot be others; we should give a sentence to each, with a clause for the criticisms. I think this will seem less difficult once we start re-writing it. If nothing else we should move away from the sweeping use of "skeptics" and "astrologers". Marskell 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So Zodiac and personality: 'No correlations were found, but this is insufficient argument bla bla bla.' Seems a bit minimal, especially for the heavier disputes like Ertel and Carlson. Maybe I have to see this in a rewrite. Piper Almanac 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you what I see for the Mars effect: a nice rosy, sequential picture. MG discovers it, many replicate it, Ertel is the icing on the cake. No mention of Zelen; no mention that the Belgian test allowed MG to reuse his own data; no mention of the French and U.S. refutations; no mention of Nienhuys' sample analysis; no mention that Ertel himself deduced serious flaws in MG's methodology. Having a separate skeptic section has the insidious effect of leaving the main section radically lopsided and I think this holds throughout. Anyhow, I'll start a rewrite at some point. Marskell 14:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The life story of the Mars effect is better documented in the separate "Mars Effect" article, which it mostly is. Piper Almanac 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

"Objective validity" doesn't actually mean anything. Does anyone mind if I move the page to "Validity of astrology"? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We just spent quite a bit of effort to determine that 'validity of astrology' was inappropriate (see above under 'Title'). Do not change the title. Aquirata 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The amount of time and effort spent by proponents on an article is irrelevant to policy and guideline considerations. FeloniousMonk 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not think objective validity is a good name. The move was carried out without sufficient discussion. Jefffire 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just think "objective" is unneeded (which I think Slim was indicating to start). Just call it "Validity of..." It's straightforward enough. Marskell 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk and Marskell: Where were you when we went through this same discussion last week? At that time, everybody agreed that validity is too broad a term, and both the main Astrology article and this article wanted to define the objective validity of astrology. Astrology can be valid for a client receiving a reading from an astrologer, which may have nothing to do with what you want to discuss here. Do you really want to open that can of worms? Are you prepared to argue how astrology as a religion can be valid? Aquirata 02:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, your point about the exact wording of the title has been noted. However, you have also agreed that validity was not a good term. You say there was not enough discussion. If you actually look at the first Title section above, you will notice that we talked about a title change for four days. At the end of that discussion, two editors favoured 'objective validity' while one stood for 'scientific validity', so I asked: Can we settle on 'Objective validity of astrology' for the title? Aquirata 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC). No answer was received for two days despite regular discussion on the topic prior to that. Therefore: Renamed article in light of majority opinion and no objection. Aquirata 11:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC). If you want to open up the discussion again, that's fine, but let's not go back to a term that has already been discarded. Aquirata 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and Merge

I propose splitting off Seymour to a stub article under the heading "Electromagnetic Astrology" or maybe "Physical Astrology." The latter might also include Landscheidt, Nelson, and Brown among others. It could have a link from Objective Validity. Piper Almanac 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Theories of astrology or Proposed mechanisms for astrology. I feel 'electromagnetic' or even 'physical' too restrictive. Aquirata 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Theories of astrology" is POV. Astrology is not considered by the majority of the community that defines "theory" to present an actual theory. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't understand the point you are making in the second sentence, a NPOV proposal would then be to suggest Proposed theories of astrology? Aquirata 17:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this point either. I work in a humanities field where theory is defined, redefined, and at the core of discussion all the time. Also, I don't think 'proposed theories of astrology' should be the title unless you are planning to include the variety of thoughts about astrology as a non-scientific phenonemon. I have in mind, for example the Curry and Cornelius divination camp, the Hyde camp of Jungian psychology, various religious camps, etc. The Landscheidt etc works are specifically about physical mechanism. Zeusnoos 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposed theories of astrology sounds good to me. It would be interesting to see it, whatever it is, all together. Piper Almanac 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Zeusnoos makes a good point. Proposed mechanisms for astrology definitely sounds a lot more 'physical' and would be more contained, while Proposed theories of astrology could be all-inclusive, meaning descriptions of both 'physical' and 'divinatory' explanations. Thinking about it actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the latter either. I'm not aware of other places within WP where any of this stuff could reside, so perhaps this new article is called for anyway regardless of the discussion here. Aquirata 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't need another POV-fork is my first thought. Let's maybe work on this before creating? Marskell 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this can or cannot be done from a NPOV perspective? The current general article on Astrology starts in this direction, but only briefly mentions one theory - Jung's - in the subsection 'Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind'. Garry Phillipson attempted to draw out how astrologers theorize about their practice in his book. I'm aware of another grad student working on a dissertation on theories of astrology, with a sociological leaning. To me, it's an interesting topic that I have also written about somewhere, but is it fitting for wiki? Zeusnoos 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed theories and mechanisms are integral to astrology. Since there is no proper home for them in the Astrology article, and some of us are adamant on ridding this article of them, the only sensible option remaining is the creation of a new article. Aquirata 02:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If and when such an article is created put it there. But till then there is no place for it. We directly contradict the articles purpose by including it here. Jefffire 13:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The more inclusive title could at least list all the various theories, physical, divinatory, and psychological/sociological. If needed at some future point, it could split, but that is not the immediate concern here. There's work to be done. Action item for Aquirata, please do the honors of creating a new stub article (or I'll do it). Piper Almanac 13:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll do this - please give me some time. Aquirata 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look: Proposed theories of astrology. Aquirata 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look: Wikipedia:Content forking. Marskell 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I believe the consensus was this was an unrelated topic that did not belong in the current article. This would not be content forking. I've added a stub flag to the new article. A lot of potential content could go there. Thanks Aquirata. Piper Almanac 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure and merge

I have proposed a restructuring of this article, which was immediately reverted. Nothing has happened since, has it? My impression was that this is the direction we are heading to, so why hasn't anyone picked this up? Aquirata 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology vs astrologers

One distinction we must make when talking about astrology (or anything else really) is the body of knowledge itself vs those who practice (or claim or appear to practice) it. The article is riddled with:

  • How astrologers view this or that, and
  • How astrologers fared in various tests.

This is not what the objective validity of astrology should be all about. It should be about astrology and not the astrologers, whoever they may be. It may be that the first bullet is simply a semantic problem, but the second one is surely irrelevant here. Nobody would be interested, for example, how astronomers would fare in psychological tests. Astrology is a vast subject, and no contemporary astrologer could honestly claim to have a proper grasp of the entire landscape. Yet another factor muddling the picture is the delusion that many astrologers think (or feel) they understand it all, yet they unquestioningly accept the various rules passed down through the ages. Then there are personality issues such as dishonesty, vanity, greed, etc.

I would like to suggest that we take a serious look at the article in this light, and attempt to do a fair presentation of the objective validity of astrology and not that of astrologers. Aquirata 01:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

These are good points. Objective validity should mean that non-astrologers should be able to apply the rules and get positive results. However, there is a big difference between Mayes & Klugh and the Urban-Lurain computer model. Mayes and Klugh did not know how the chart factors should be combined but Urban-Lurain did because he did his research beforehand. Urban-Lurain's computer can beat experienced astrologers in identifying alcoholics. That is promising because it suggests that astrologers can improve their skills by learning from the results of objective research. Maybe the article should be renamed Objective research in astrology. The various research can be stated as they are now, and then the criticism can be added as assumptions or weaknesses in the test. Piper Almanac 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Obvious oppose. It's that little prepostion: obviously many people would emphatically deny "objective research" can occur in astrology. "Research regarding astrology" I suppose I could live with. But then it would seem to leave less room for theoretical criticisms.
I disagree entirely (surprise) with Aquirata's point. If you seriously expect we can evaluate its validity without evaluating those who purport to practice it, then what the hell are we left with? To analyze automobile traffic, would you limit yourself to analyzing automobiles and not the people who drive them? Marskell 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You have just made my point. To analyze traffic say at an intersection in order to adjust the timing of traffic lights, one most certainly need not consider the ability of drivers to drive cars. We can have a separate section about astrologers' performance in various statistical tests, but the objective validity of astrology ought not depend on the subjective views and abilities of its practitioners. Do you perhaps wish to include the failed statistical tests of 'astrology' (i.e. the scientists' view of it) as examples of the scientists' level of understanding of astrology? Aquirata 12:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Right. Speed, braking times, cognition and reflex? Irrelevant. Astrology is here to stay but Traffic psychology is out.
You have a supposed discipline and you're telling me with a straight face that analyzing the practice and success of its adherents has nothing to do with its validity. What does? What are we left with? We should represent their views but not their results? Do you understand how ludicrous that position is? "Your honour, I'll be giving you my views on the defendent's guilt but I'll just skip the evidence." Really, I'm honestly laughing out loud as I write this. Marskell 12:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you perhaps wish to include the failed statistical tests of 'astrology' (i.e. the scientists' view of it) as examples of the scientists' level of understanding of astrology? - Yes, I certainly do. But if some astrologer comes up with a new idea of how to find correlations, let us test it too, by all means. And as the number of different ideas tested (and the number of tests for each) approach infinity, we have increasing certainty that astrology does not work. And even if your example was not as flawed as Marskell has pointed out, it does not mean that all traffic cannot be anaylyzed with reference to the drivers. Please try to construct you arguments better. Lundse 13:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Marskell, but you have missed my point. Adjusting traffic lights only depends on volume of traffic and not on drivers' abilities (or rather, the latter has no significant bearing in a statistical measurement. Thus the 'objective validity of traffic' cannot be determined by studying the 'driving abilities of those who make traffic'. More to the point, when attempting to adjust traffic lights, you don't take the drivers to an examination but set up equipment to monitor traffic.
I'm not advocating the removal of this material, just that it should be categorized as 'astrologers' performance' and not the 'objective validity of astrology'. There is a huge difference between the two. Aquirata 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse, I don't think I understand your first sentence. Do you wish to include statements in this article to the effect that 'most scientists don't have a good grasp on astrology since they have never bothered to study it'? I purposely slanted the statement to make a point, and am not saying this as a matter of fact. Regarding drivers and traffic, certainly other tests can be devised to show correlation between the two, but that's not the example I brought up (see above). Aquirata 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I was saying that, yes scientists' tests which show no correlation can be used. And no, unless it can be shown that the tests failed because the scientists did not understand astrology (which does not make sense, as they test only the results, leaving all theory and stating of claims to the astrologers) I would not include such a comment.
Drivers and traffic - you are arguing that some areas of traffic analysis does not refer to drivers, yes. While this may be true, some areas certainly do. So when we are testing astrology it matters very much how astrologers perform, because unlike in traffic analysis, there is no area where the astrologers is not in some way involved.
You have to generalize, otherwise we would write nothing. How many astrologers does it take for us to be able to write something on astrology? Or should we just delete the article, or make one for every astrologer instead? Also, please note that it is every astrologer tested who has failed, making a generalized statement even more fitting (actually, more than most sentences in the article, as astrologers disagree on a lot of points.
The basic premise for astrology: heaven and earth correlation. This has been tested time and gain, nothing has been found. Every test of astrologers damn astrology as it is one more correlation disproven - we cannot test all possible correlations and nor should we before saying 'this is hogswash', unless there is another good reason to assume we need to test more (a lot of people in the past thought so is not reason enough). You had 200-2000 years, you failed, end of story. Lundse 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The foremost skeptic authority on astrology, Geoffrey Dean, lists the following as the number one reason for no definitive research results on astrology as of 1976:

  1. Most astrologers are interested amateurs, and the number of genuine researchers is very small (less than a handful work full-time).

I would add to this that, with the divinatory view gaining momentum in recent decades, the situation is probably worse now. If that was the case for science in general, would you want to separate the performance of scientists from the potential of science? To make answering this question easier, imagine that you are in the middle of the dark ages, when a handful of people had some bright scientific ideas which were dismissed out of hand as heretic by religious authorities.

So certainly there is a huge difference between astrology and what astrologers at large are capable of today. Aquirata 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Astrologers say..."

Along with "astrologers object" and various other blanket statements are liberally sprinkled throughout. I have placed some fact tags. Given that the most common definition of what astrologers say is probably "many things" I think the certainty inappropriate. Marskell 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The one I had the most trouble with is "Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study". The source cited is a 1982 Skeptical Inquirer article. I'm confused, is there an online article I can see? This topic says MG compared his personality profiles with zodiacal signs, but his book "Psychology of the Planets" (authored by Françoise) published in that year compares the personality profiles with planets, not signs. I know that MG never found anything in signs, but he only looked for factors of success. He did not understand astrology well enough to know that signs have nothing to do with success but instead are values, which is something quite different. I need to see this article if possible. Piper Almanac 00:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pseudoscience"

Thank you for the useful link to Paul Thagard's 1978 article, which defines "pseudoscience." It helps to clear up the confusion I've had about this term and how astrology critics think about astrology. It has made it clear that astrology is not pseudoscience.

A lot has happened in the 28 years since Thagard's article was published, and things were changing even well before then. Astrology has experienced a renaissance since the mid 60s. Today, astrology is as greatly transformed from the time of William Lilly, as astrology in Lilly's time was from the time of Ptolemy.

Here's what Thagard says:

---

A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:

1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.

Progressiveness is a matter of the success of the theory in adding to its set of facts explained and problems solved.

---

First of all astrology does not purport to be science.

Thagard's criteria fail on both counts. Astrology has resolved the meanings of the three modern planets and has published many articles on the asteroids and other objects in space. It has incorporated and expanded upon many ideas from psychology such as archetypes, synchronicity, the shadow, collective unconsciousness, generational values, adult developmental psychology, projection, and many many more, as well as transpersonal and other practical techniques. With the aid of computers, it has developed complex mapping techniques such as astrocartography, and developed large databases of timed data used for research. It has researched extensive time change atlases, now the world standard. It has compiled extensive historical records and data, as never seen before. It has worked towards the understanding of recurrent societal problems, and compares itself extensively to psychology. It has extensively researched its own past through the translation and analysis of its own ancient texts, which has given it perspective on how astrology has changed and evolved in comparison to philosophy and psychology. It is becoming more vigilant about detecting and rectifying errors and claims.

I have protested the use of the label "pseudoscience" in this article before and now there is justification for its removal. This label has nothing to do with the article itself. Pseudoscience is radically POV and is never explained in the article because it cannot be justified. It is only used as a propaganda tool to prejudice readers beforehand. It is a taboo warning to venture no further into the article, on threat of scientific ostracism and voodoo death.

At least provide more description on what is meant by pseudoscience, so intelligent readers can dismiss this claim for themselves. Piper Almanac 13:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, synaptic overload with these.
Subject and verb of the sentence: "Skeptics...say" NOT "Astrology...is". We are not deciding. We have no business deciding. Your above description is thoughtful but this is a basic fact: that User:PiperAlmanac has decided a source is wrong does not have any bearing on whether we might use the source. The fundamental principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability is: "verifiability, not truth." We can verify that a number of skeptics call it a pseudoscience. That is enough.
"First of all astrology does not purport to be science." Who says this? Which body or person has made this decision? Marskell 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for listening, I feel a bit better now. Piper Almanac 14:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thagard's definition of pseudoscience is not the only one (there's Popper and Lakatos, for instance). Popper defines it more on the falsiability criteria. As has been discussed here extensively, it seems that some aspects of astrology are falsifiable while others are not. Popper also used Freudian analysis as an example of unfalsifiable theory. The theory that explains the phenomenon (unconscious drives) cannot be tested. These issues have caused all sorts of problems in philosophy of science since the nature of explanation and evidence are at stake when the theory leads the evidence. Zeusnoos 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that most astrologers don't consider astrology a science.
It is also true that the term 'pseudoscience' is POV (i.e. scientific or skeptic viewpoint).
It follows, therefore, that the use of 'pseudoscience' with respect to astrology is questionable. Does the term have anything to do with objective validity? Not really. Can it be included as a point of view? I think it can. The current wording, however, is highly questionable:
"Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience."
The two references provided for this statement don't support the statement itself: they have nothing to say about skeptics or the scientific community. Either a reword or better sourcing is required here.
Actually, I find it interesting that the skeptic side insists on including this classification of astrology, which only shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand. Aquirata 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What?!
The sources say nothing about how scientists see astrology? It is a bloody scientist saying "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience" and giving scientific reasons. What the hell more do you want, an Encyclopedia Brittanica quote saying "Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience."?
And of course that is what they say, and you know it - drawing doubts about sources for something you know is true is editing in bad faith.
Regarding your last comment, you have been told many, many times over why "lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand" is entirely unnecesarry when classifying it as a pseudocscience. Knowledge is, however, needed on philosophy of science - which is why scientists and philosophers (and those in between) are exactly the right people to ask and why a statement regarding their views on the matter is vital to this article. Lundse 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Lundse, but "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V While the statement in question may be true, it needs to be verifiable for inclusion. The references cited support the following statement: "According to WordNet and Thagard, astrology is a pseudoscience". No more.
Again, you are misunderstanding my intent. I said: "Can it [astrology is pseudoscience] be included as a point of view? I think it can. The current wording, however, is highly questionable." Aquirata 14:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
So we can never extrapolate or generalize or say "cars drive" because we can only say "according to this car magazine, this scientist, this guy and this historian, cars drive"? Even "according to common understanding, cars drive" is wrong by your logic, as it generalizes from many viewpoints to one.
I maintain that there comes a point when we have to state a fact and not an opinion (which should still, ideally, be sourced) - we can actuallty say "cars drive" and only have to have a footnote with the reasons. In a perfect world, we would simply write "astrology is a pseudoscience" and have sources for it, but since so many people think they know about validity because they like astrology and because pseudoscience is a bit harsh, we will keep it at "according to scientists+, astrology is a pseudoscience" - tell me how many scientists have to say this, and how many public statements to the fact we have to present to you in order for the generalization to be OK with you.
I suspect the reason we get the target number you will find another reason to oppose it, as you are obviously applying policies in bad faith in order to get damning statements removed. I know truth is not the criterion, but please, you bloody well know that is what scientists and skeptics believe, why are you trying to keep it out if not to further your own agenda? Lundse 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


"Virtually the entire" was added by someone recently. It can be tweaked. A better sentence might be: "where the scientific community has commented". It's not as if the Astronomical Society of the Pacific calls it pseudo-science (it does) and the American College of Physicians and Surgeons has said they support it. Where scientists and particularly scientific bodies do comment I don't think they really hesitate to use the word pseudoscience. And to be clear: the section has seven refs, which is exactly seven more than the "How astrologers" view section. Zeus, you'll note our page on psychoanalysis states "Considered a science by its supporters and pseudoscience by many critics". Not our greatest page to be sure, but if the term is regularly deployed in regards to a topic there's nothing POV about us saying so. Marskell 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my references for removing the fact sign put up. I am sorry if I did not provide enough and that I did not write "according to webpage X, Y, Z... astrology..." as some people seem to think is necesarry.

Austin is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance
Andrew Fraknoi - Chair of the Astronomy Department at Foothill

College and Educational Consultant for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Rory Coker, Ph.D.
Dean and Kelly - does not use the word pseudoscience but describes it as such.
Philip Plait, astronomy phd. - does not use the term but describes as such.
Daniel R. Stinebring, Professor (slides for a lecture, it seems, calling it a pseudoscience).
Robert Todd Carroll (1945-), Ph.D., is a philosophy professor and chairman of the Philosophy Department at Sacramento City College.
provided these too:
  • [1] Lawrence E. Jerome, Astrology Disproved, New York: Prometheus Books, 1977. See also the brief critique in The Straight Dope.
  • [2] Reuters: "Astrology May Be Off the Charts," Saturday, January 1, 1995, reported in the Washington Post.
  • http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
Stephen Lower is a retired faculty member of the Dept of Chemistry, Simon Fraser University Burnaby / Vancouver, Canada
Ivan W. Kelly, University of Saskatchewan, Canada - does not use exact term
Gregory C. Sloan. Credentials here: http://isc.astro.cornell.edu/~sloan/research/experience.html

Is this enough or do I have to find more scientists and skeptics to warrant he conclusion that "Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience, which makes scientific claims without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method." Or do I need to write out the names of each person in an conjunction and say that this is their view. And BTW, how many people would support just writing out that it is a pseudoscience - do we need more evidence? Lundse 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is great work, and I will go through each ref you provided. By the way, I am not looking for 99,000 citations to prove that "skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is pseudoscience." Two reliable sources will suffice (one for each part of the statement). For example, the Humanist article, while not providing statistical proof, implies that most scientists believe this is so (not a perfect source in this case but much better than what we have now).
Have there been any surveys of the scientific and skeptic communities re astrology? Aquirata 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have checked every single online reference you have provided. I haven't found a single statement that would support the statement in this article. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. I am not looking for proof that astrology is a pseudoscience but for a reliable source that supports the statement in question. Aquirata 16:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
To your earlier posting: Perhaps you noticed that I didn't remove the statement in question, I merely added a tag. I am not opposed to some kind of a statement to that effect at all. I believe it is close to the truth, although one could question what relevance the scientific community would have in a question the vast majority of them cannot be bothered to look into because they reject astrology out of hand. How can one have an opinion about something one has no idea about is one question. Then what relevance that opinion has is the other. But putting these questions aside, the statement will either still have to be sourced or reworded if proper sourcing cannot be done. I can accept the Humanist article as reflective of a large part of the scientific community (at that time, but things move slowly). I have no idea what a representative publication about the skeptic community would be, even though this should be easier to source. Aquirata 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's too many sources now for astrology as pseudoscience. Please just choose one or two, the best of the bunch, not too out-of-date nor too repugnant. Piper Almanac 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. But do you notice the catch-22 in debating here? Aquirata wants blood types and finds a reason to dismiss everything presented. So um... Marskell 21:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Aquirata wants blood types and finds a reason to dismiss everything presented: No, not at all. What I said should be quite clear: "I am not looking for proof that astrology is a pseudoscience but for a reliable source that supports the statement in question." Only one reliable reference would have been required for the statement "skeptics say astrology is pseudoscience", and one for "virtually the entire scientific community say astrology is pseudoscience." The same applies with the reworded sentence. I think Dean's Recent Advances should be one of your major reference and not the slew of websites (I can't believe I'm even telling you good sources to support your position :)). Aquirata 23:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps the best known field of astronomical pseudo-science is the ancient idea that the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment we are born somehow affects our subsequent personality, career, or love-life...However, astrology is also the field in which the largest number of scientific tests have been performed and the evidence clearly demonstrates that astrological connections are no more than wishful thinking" [1]. I cited this above from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
And the fact remains you have yet to insert a single claim into "How astrologers view..." despite your tendentious babbling about the sources we're providing. Marskell 06:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
None of the sources cited support the two statements, "skeptics say astrology is a pseudoscience" and "the scientific community, where it has commented, say astrology is a pseudoscience." If that's not the meaning of the sentence, then a reword to "Where commented, skeptics, including the scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience" would help. The phrase where commented is a good one to use, but it doesn't take the burden of proof off your shoulders (or whoever is proposing to use the statements in question). Making the statement implies that it is significant enough in the context, so a significant portion of skeptics or scientists must say this. I will be putting back the 'fact' tag unless a suitable reference is found.
Perhaps a better way of saying what you want to state is this: "Astronomers and other scientists and skeptics with an interest in astrological research say astrology is a pseudoscience." This may be easier to source.
Again, I'm not arguing whether the statement is true, just that you need to follow Wikipedia policies in your writing. And if you are unhappy with any of the article, you should edit it accordingly, including the use of 'fact' tags where required. Aquirata 09:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"The best known field of astronomical pseudo-science...in which the largest number of scientific tests have been performed" under the title "Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List." This from "the largest general astronomy society in the world".
Perhaps we interpret words differently. Marskell 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
May be so. You can certainly support a statement such as this one: "According to the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the largest general astronomy society in the world, astrology is a pseudoscience." Aquirata 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah once again, excellent movement of the goalposts. Marskell 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough already

I have had quite enough of this "moving of goal-posts" and I cannot for the life of me see how we can interpret Aq.'s latest comments as anything other than attempts to block a process which is slowly leading to something he would rather avoid. My sources (and I clearly stated this) were supposed to support this:

"Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience, which makes scientific claims without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method."

And Aq. says:

OK, I have checked every single online reference you have provided. I haven't found a single statement that would support the statement in this article. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my point. I am not looking for proof that astrology is a pseudoscience but for a reliable source that supports the statement in question.

This is absoletely insane. The sources do hint that astrology is a pseudoscience, but seeing as they are all examples of scientists and/or skeptics saying that it is one, one could also say that they support the statement that "Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say..." - or am I completely of base here? What the h... kind of sources would support that claim, then? Claiming they do not is simply trying to bother me and make things difficult for those wanting this statement in the article and not equipt with a fact marker.

And coming up with small pearls such as:

"one could question what relevance the scientific community would have in a question the vast majority of them cannot be bothered to look into because they reject astrology out of hand"

is complete horse-shit. Scientists have looked into it, they have looked on the results - I am sorry if you delude yourself that one can judge it solely by this and that you think we should all buy your books and go to your seminars but we have looked into it, we just found it wanting (in any kind of merit or truth).

And

"I have no idea what a representative publication about the skeptic community would be, even though this should be easier to source"

is another proof that Aq. is not even trying. One of the sources is from "The Skeptics Dictionary" for crying out loud - do you want me to find one from James Randi too? Or can you manage that on your own? Again, bad faith.

And I agree that we should not use all the sources, sorry for lumping them all in like that... But they are good sources, they are examples of A and B saying X, and the statement is that "As and Bs say X" - what more do you want? C saying "As and Bs say X"? Is that the only kind of source we can use now? In that case, our car article cannot say "cars drive" but only "A says cars drive", you are being absurd in order to not step down from your untenable and, frankly, stupid position of wanting a statement saying something bad about astrology out or changed to be more kind to your feelings. It is my claim that Aq. is acting in bad faith. Please try to explain why you have made such a fuss over one small, obvious fact in an article littered with unsourced claims far more interesting. And to have the nerve not to accept a source written by A saying X as good for the claim "A says X" is simply too much. Lundse 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An overview statement, where the "pseudoscience" remark is made, wouldn't ordinarily need citations provided what follows backs it up with facts or some convincing logic. What follows tries to provide evidence that astrology is pseudoscience, but this evidence is undermined by some efforts that appear to be scientific and appear to have had some success. Thus the insistance by skeptics that astrologers reject scientific method or inquiry seems to be eroding, or at least could seem confusing to readers. The question that must arise from this is "who said astrology is pseudoscience, and when?" If this was the position 28 years ago, around the time of the Humanist article, then has it changed in more recent years? If citations are used with regard to pseudoscience, then the dates are important. Strong 28 years ago, but perhaps weaker now (one Saturn revolution later)? I for one would like to know. Piper Almanac 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse, I can understand your frustration, but please don't assume that anything is being done in bad faith. The simple fact is that, so far, nobody has been able to point to a reference that would back up what skeptics or scientists say in general. Citing a dozen examples in the name of the scientific community numbering 100,000 or who knows how many is not sufficient to make your point. A survey about the beliefs of scientists would be.
However, a compromise has already been reached on the Astrology page, and I am surprised you haven't carried it over here. The final sentence reads:
"Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers[1][2], and as a pseudoscience by a number of critics [3][4]."
The references are:
1. ^ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astrology
2. ^ http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356010/astrology
3. ^ http://128.241.173.3/education/resources/pseudobib.html#1
4. ^ http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=astrology
Would you be happy with the same here? Aquirata 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Webster's and Britannica are speaking for astrologers? Okay, let bad be balanced against bad, so we can unburden ouselves of this. Say yes. Piper Almanac 01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To you both - how many sources does one need in order to say that scientists believe it is a pseudoscience? How many, from when? You are being ridiculous and absurd - we all know that this is what the scientific community (and certainly the skeptic) thinks and I provided 12 sources for it. Now you want a survey? So in order to write a general statement about eg. scientists we have to be able to find a survey? How about this:

Scientists are people who follow the scientific method (insofar as they are good scientists). The scientific method has produced overwhelming amounts of indications that astrology fares no better than chance. Scientists, following scientific method, must of necessity follows its conclusions - that astrology has no merit. Something believed to have no merit, calling itself an -ology, which does not change according to critique or new data correlations, which retracts into vague statements when presented with critique and where many adherents sees it as a science or some term implying this (eg. "study") is a pseudoscience. Hence, scientists think astrology is a pseudoscience.

Or: A lot of sources have scientists saying astrology is a pseudoscience and/or without merit. So we can write it in our encyclopedia.

And no, it is not "a number of critics" it is everyone who has an inkling of understanding of the methods and philosophy of science, including skeptics and scientists. Not starting the article with "astrology is a pseudoscience" is a huge favor given our for free to all astrologers, not writing "scientists believe it is a pseudoscience" would be fraud. It is not the critics or debunkers, it's everyone with an informed opinion - the only reason not to include it is because it looks bad for astrology. I am sorry, but I still do not see good faith here. I found the 12 sources as a joke, going far beyond anything that could possibly be asked in honesty to prove a point.

On this:

"Citing a dozen examples in the name of the scientific community numbering 100,000 or who knows how many is not sufficient to make your point."

I have only to say this: yes it bloody well is. How much time to you want me to use finding people who state the obvious - of course scientists think it is bogus (see my simple arguyment above). I do not have to find more than twelve examples of them to satisfy your vanities, I do not owe you that much and the result is already given.

I do not believe any of you to be so stupid as to think that scientists in general do not believe astrology is bunk. Whether they choose to use the word pseudoscience or not is really beside the point - the point is that it oftentimes poses as a science, tries to emulate some aspects of science, has a history as a proto-science which it frequently drags out as an argument and it is meritless from a scientific viewpoint - it is a pseudoscience, and scientists know this. Back of this absurd endeavor, or someone might go finding sources for all the claims in the last sentence and then we can write "astrology is a pseudoscience" as well-sourced and objective.

Jeez, Lundse 01:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, You have rejected what can be considered a consensus proposal. What's yours? Aquirata 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This:
"Skeptics, including virtually the entire scientific community, say astrology is a pseudoscience, as it makes scientific claims without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method."
With a source or two (skepdic would be good, and maybe one the report pdf thing). Lundse 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Take out a comma and change "as" to "because", so it reads "...say astrology is a pseudoscience because it makes scientific claims..." I'd be okay with that as a positional statement. A couple of sources will be sufficient, but please include dates of the sources so readers can see how old or recent these views are. Piper Almanac 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. I merged the existing part about failing tests as it seems to go well with the science bit. Dates are available for some of the sources I left, but I have not put them in yet - where would you do this? Lundse 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Virtually the entire scientific community" is I'm sure an overstatement. Virtually the entire scientific community couldn't care less about astrology and they don't call it anything. If you can source the statement as is, I will accept it, otherwise you will need to rephrase. Sources arguing how silly astrology is do not back up the statement about what the scientific community says. I am not being difficult at all, but giving up on Wikipedia policies is like chickens running around without their heads. Aquirata 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not on understatement, as there is no other conclusion to draw for one knowledgeable in the methods of science. And yes, sources saying what is wrong with astrology coming from within the scientific community do back up the statement about "what the scientific community says" - I explained this once, do I have to do it again?
Statement "A says X" can be sourced by examples of A's saying "X" or sources (eg. by B) saying "A says X" - mine are the former kind. Are you not getting this, or are you simply being perverse? Lundse 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Gauquelin's books were widely read, and were of interest to scientists. I'm sure Gauquelin springs to the minds of many scientists when astrology is mentioned in any serious context. They would probably reserve judgment rather than jump to some conclusion. What you have is an overstatement. Piper Almanac 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Find me one serious scientist who does not think astrology is silly and we can talk about it. G. interest for scientists is to tell him what he did wrong (sample selection) and make clear that his study therefore does not need us to rewrite all our books - of course they are interested and of course they know it is complete bullocks. Again I ask you, how many sources do we need for something which is blatantly obvious (as proved by my syllogism above, and which you know perfectly well to be true). And why do you change your mind now, you agreed to this if we changed the "as" to a "because"? Lundse 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is not relevant

First "'virtually the entire scientific community' is I'm sure an overstatement. Virtually the entire scientific community couldn't care less about astrology and they don't call it anything", answers a possible overstatement with an obvious one. And this is the changing goalposts: first, we don't have a source; then, the source is dismissed for a supposed absence of astrological knowledge. Here is what's NOT relevant:

  • Whether scientists are right or wrong. This does not matter for the sentence we are debating. "Verifiability, not truth".
  • Whether scientists know anything about astrology. Ditto, for the same reason. If the Union of Virtually Every Scientist releases a verifiable statement it may be used, regardless of whether you think it is ill-informed. Of course, if you have a verifiable source showing "virtually the entire scientific community couldn't care less about astrology", that would be permissible for exactly the same reason. Special note: your opinions aren't verifiable sources.

Other notes:

  • I have yet to see a single source describing the supposed opinions of astrologers that is anywhere close to the sources we are providing for scientists. Forget "anywhere close"—you just don't have any that provide summative opinions on what astrologers think of astrology. I'm really touched, Aquirata, that you care so much about policy—you should apply it to your own assertions.
  • Sources need to be attributed if they are dubious or self-published. The Astronomical Society of the Pacific and Princeton WordNet are not dubious or self-published. They directly support the wording in question and we are entitled to use them. You want this to meet policy and it does.
  • Personally, I think "virtually the entire" is wordy. I think we should just say the "scientific community." Marskell 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't agree to the "virtually the entire scientific community" change on 15:28, 31 May 2006, and was surprized to see this. It's not only wordy but hyperbole, overstated, and just plain overly exaggerated. I'm okay with Marskell's trimming it to just "the scientific community". Piper Almanac 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. I guess it was a misunderstanding regarding my edit - your response starting with "Take out a comma and change" does seem to accept my proposal which included this wording. I agree with Marskell above and thought that "virtual" was inserted by some astrologer who would give us hell about it if we removed it - I have no objections to losing it. I am only dreading what Aq. willl think of next to stop this edit going through... Lundse 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"A says X" can be sourced by examples of A's saying "X": First of all, this syllogism doesn't exactly apply to your statement. The first 'A' = 'scientific community', and the second 'A' = 'scientist' in your example. Secondly, even if I assume that you meant "the set of (or virtually the entire set of) A says "X" can be sourced by examples of A's saying "X", you will have to provide proof for '(virtually) the entire scientific community'. If you can find a dozen examples to support your argument, who is to say that one cannot find 99,988 sources to support the opposite. I am not saying that I could, all I'm saying that you are on shaky logical ground. One could consider this a pseudoscientific approach. :) Aquirata 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You are simply mincing words, the first time I explained this to you I included mention that the more sources, the closer to truth. Of course you need more than one sample of scientists to make a broad statement, (will 12 do?) but this still does not mean we need a survey. Lundse 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see a single source describing the supposed opinions of astrologers that is anywhere close to the sources we are providing for scientists: You should put up the 'fact' tag, and somebody will source it.
  • The Astronomical Society of the Pacific and Princeton WordNet [...] directly support the wording in question: No, they don't. They support the statement 'according to the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and Princeton WordNet, astrology is pseudoscience', but they don't support the statement 'the scientific community says astrology is pseudoscience'. A representative survey about the opinions of the scientific community would support your statement. It follows that I cannot agree with the proposed wording.
  • I am only dreading what Aq. willl (sic) think of next to stop this edit going through: And so you should! Just kidding, of course... :)
Aquirata 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did. It was removed. I will re-add.
  • If it is not a dubious source it does not have to be attributed. "According to the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and Princeton WordNet..." is not strictly necessary unless you feel them dubious. With numerous, sufficiently summative sources, and no serious challenge to the point in question, the burden of proof returns to you. Again, if the Astronomical Society of the Pacific says pseudo-science, but the Ast. Soc. of the Atlantic says not, then your point holds but no one is suggesting that. This doesn't mean the point can't have nuance. Marskell 06:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Looking at all the discussion about this one sentence, it seems to me that

  • Lundse and Marskell are keen to use the term pseudoscience in some form, but
  • Piper Alamanac and myself are fussing about the exact wording.

It is a given that, lacking a suitable opinion survey, you will not be able to source the statement 'the scientific community says...'. The bright side is that we are not arguing about whether the word pseudoscience is allowed in this article.

Yes we will, enough scientists saying it would be a good source. No single scientist saying different is a good source. The scientific method necesitating the conclusion is a good source. I am not finding you any more, though. I am done with this silly nitpicking and will revert edits based on your sophist demands. Lundse

Here is my proposal. Why don't we use this wording: "The scientific community, where commented, says astrology is a pseudoscience." This preserves the original intent, uses the much-beloved term pseudoscience, and avoids the problem of sourcing. A couple of representative sources, such as you have already provided, will suffice for this version. Aquirata 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is mine, keep the current version:
Skeptics, including the scientific community, criticize astrology as either non-falsifiable (because it makes scientific claims without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method) or as simply erroneous where it is testable (because it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies[1]). More extremely it is dismissed as superstition or pseudoscience, both by scientific bodies as well as by numerous individual critics[2][3][4].
This debate has gone on for too long and you have been indulged too far. BTW, good summation, Marskell. Lundse 10:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you. It's more robust but less focussed on the word pseudoscience, which is presented more as an incidental label some apply. Marskell 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's OK, it is clear about science and mentions both problems (falisifiability and failures) - pseudoscience is a strong word and though it is blindingly obvious that it applies in this case it's fine that it is presented in this way. Lundse 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good now. It was hard work but worth it. I can live with 'failed to demonstrate its effectiveness' here because it is qualified by 'in controlled studies'. This is still lacking on the Astrology page. Aquirata 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] issue with recent edit

Currently reads: "Astrologers believe that no scientifically defined causal mechanism is required for astrology to be a valid and useful system of practical knowledge, but have long believed that an empirical basis for astrology can be demonstrated through mathematics and statistics. Since the mid-twentieth century, data collection has improved to the point where the statistical process of testing, validating, and questioning astrology has begun."


The clause beginning "but have long believed..." is a generalization that I don't see as a universal fact. Which astrologers have long believed this? I have encountered quite a number who do not in fact think that astrology can be demonstrated through statistics.


How about "Many astrologers believe that no scientifically defined causal mechanism is required for astrology to be a valid and useful system of practical knowledge, but some have long believed that an empirical basis for astrology can be demonstrated through mathematics and statistics."?


How do you demonstrate something empirical with mathematics? Isn't it enough to say, "through statistics"?


Secondly - "Since the mid-twentieth century, data collection has improved to the point where the statistical process of testing, validating, and questioning astrology has begun."


How about "and questioning astrological knowledge claims has begun." The whole body of astrology is not what is tested since some of it is unfalsifiable - only falsifiable epistemological claims (past, present or future). Zeusnoos 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to recall a very early statistical study of astrology and weather, done in the 18th century by an actuary. I think the statistical idea been there from the beginning of statistics, but maybe not universally among astrologers. What you say is better. It should say "but some have long believed... through statistics." As to "questioning astrological knowledge claims," I don't think claims is the right word because astrology does not make claims but interprets according to guidelines and heuristics. The logic is deliberately "fuzzy" but within in limits. Maybe " questioning the body of traditional astrological interpretations" would work. Piper Almanac 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Is is possible that the stat study on astro and weather could be found in one of Ian Hacking's works? He did quite a bit on the history of statistics and what he coined 'statistical fatalism'. If it's from the 18th cent, it's probably a French study.
If the astrologer thinks that his interpretation is correct, is this not a claim to knowledge? If, say, you are interpreting a natal chart, and you use it to either explain something in the person's life (career choice) or use it to expect something you do not have factually (if you don't know the person's career), isn't this a claim to knowledge, even if a matter of probability? I personally think most astrological interpretations are too context sensitive and unrepeatable to put them to stat tests. The most that could be tested are traditional interpretations, but that's sticky in itself. Take the issue of death - what is the traditional interpretation? If you go by pre-modern or even pre-Arabic, it would be the 7th house and some obtuse calculation from some planet or lot. By modern astrology 8th plus the prominence of malefics. But it seems that a non-traditional factor is now considered instead - a prominent placement of Jupiter (in transit or such). I'm not sure how to word this to account for these issues except to say that astrology as a whole is not necessary being tested, but isolated astrological statements, predictions, or claims to knowledge. Zeusnoos 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's British, in English, I saw a copy. It took a lifetime of work and had disappointing results. I almost think that when scientists saw the amount of work they'd need to do in statistical astrology, they abandoned it. New questions are raised by the research, so I've simplified the intro to just "test". Piper Almanac 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic again: "Astrologers believe that no scientifically defined causal mechanism...but some have long believed that an empirical basis for astrology can be demonstrated through statistics." Is the sentence meant as a deliberate contrast? Don't we need "some" for both? Marskell 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How's this:
"Many astrologers believe that no scientifically defined causal mechanism is required for astrology to be a valid and useful system of practical knowledge, but some have long believed that an empirical basis for astrology can be demonstrated through statistics."
There is no contradiction btw because the first part talks about general validity and the second about objective validity. Aquirata 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that this has already been suggested by Zeusnoos above. Aquirata 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. Jung's acausal connecting principle of synchronicity has been adapted to astrology and almost universally accepted in recent years as far as I can tell. Interest in a statistical approach to astrology appears to have started at the beginning of statistics. Piper Almanac 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory sentences

The introductory sentences have been edited down to two sentences:

"The objective validity of astrology is a matter of controversy. At issue is evidence, or its lack, of the testable predictive power of astrology and supposed astrological mechanisms."

How is this better than the previous version:

"The objective validity of astrology is a matter of controversy. The issue in this article of objective validity concerns evidence, or its lack, of testable predictions or historical contributing factors; and not other concepts of validity such as any real or perceived benefit derived from receiving astrological advice, its validity as a cultural phenomenon, possible mechanisms, or the like (the various theories proposed for astrology are treated in a separate article titled Proposed theories of astrology). A case for and a case against astrology's objective validity are presented here."

I can live with some simplification, but to remove crucial parts that were arrived at after painstaking effort is detrimental to the process of creating a good article. Not to mention that "at issue is ... supposed astrological mechanisms" is just the opposite of what we said before. And all this without discussion - again!

I have changed it back to:

"The objective validity of astrology is a matter of controversy. The issue in this article concerns evidence, or its lack, of testable predictions or historical contributing factors; and not other concepts of validity such as any real or perceived benefit derived from receiving astrological advice, its validity as a cultural phenomenon, possible mechanisms, or the like (the various theories proposed for astrology are treated in a separate article titled Proposed theories of astrology)."

Aquirata 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposed theories, including possible mechanisms, are treated in a separate article. Objective results are all that's needed for objective validity. Even with a mechanism, objective results still need to be obtained. The introduction should not mention mechanisms because they are not addressed within this article, except for a pointer to the other article. Piper Almanac 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The very first sentence of the second paragraphs mentions mechanisms which stands in contradiction to the preceding.
  2. To suppose we can discuss "Objective validity" of a discipline of this sort without discussing mechanisms is silly.
  3. Do not refer to the article within the article.
  4. The edit you desire is a syntactic mess.
  5. You have not provided citations. I have re-inserted the fact requests. Marskell 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I find it unacceptable that you introduce major changes to the introductory paragraph without discussion. The state before your changes reflects consensus. If you want to change that, come here first, argue about it, and reach a new consensus. Aquirata 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer my points (heard that one before)? Marskell 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As for your arguments, they are baseless:
  1. The article doesn't deal with proposed mechanisms; this consensus was reached just recently due to skeptics wanting to move out Seymour content. This content needs to be referenced here. The fact that the second paragraph mentions mechanisms has nothing to do with the main arguments of the article. It says "regardless whether a scientifically defined causal mechanism can be defined for astrology", it's not arguing for a mechanism.
  2. See first point.
  3. See first point.
  4. I have improved the second paragraph. What's your proposal?
  5. The fact request for "the question of empirical basis for astrology can be examined by statistics" is not required. Do you dispute that?
If you insist on destroying perfectly good content previously agreed to by the majority of editors (including skeptics), then I suggest you take a close look at your intentions. Aquirata 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The history shows this: with the first edit of the 22nd you unilaterally inserted this first paragraph. Point my to the consensus for this wording, because I can't find it.
  1. There was no consensus for your POV forking to Proposed mechanisms. You did it because you didn't want to argue about Seymour here.
  2. The fact remains: this page is called objective validity of astrology and its absolutely senseless to suggest we can examine this topic without examining mechanisms. To use a previous example, how much sense would it make to have an "Objective validity of gravity" and admit off the top "we aren't going to examine the gravitational constant"?
  3. You haven't answered this.
  4. You haven't answered this.
  5. Yes, I dispute the logic of the sentence. If you don't know what you're establishing the basis of you can't say you're establishing anything at all. "Even if we can't we define astrology we can still statistically prove it" is a non-sequitor. And of course, the long-standing problem remains: you STILL have not provided ANY summative sources about what astrologers supposedly think about astrology. It is a massive, gaping hole. Marskell 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, don't be ridiculous. You yourself changed the intro at 18:04, 21 May 2006, without discussion: "Marskell (rm ridiculous strawman intro in favour of long-standing one)". I have only reinstated it.

  1. The last word on this was: "Thanks, but I believe the consensus was this was an unrelated topic that did not belong in the current article. This would not be content forking." (Piper Almanac 19:00, 26 May 2006) (UTC)
  2. Skeptics have argued against keeping this content. Are you changing your mind now?
  3. Removed content will have to be referenced from somewhere. Make up your mind about whether you want this content or not.
  4. The edit has been improved. It's not much help to say that something is wrong; you'll need to suggest something to take it further.
  5. Perhaps you cannot define astrology, which means you need to study it further. Regarding the fact request, why do you want me to provide the sourcing? I'm not responsible for that issue, am I? There will be someone who will pick it up, it may be me, may be somebody else.

Aquirata 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy fuck. "Perhaps you cannot define astrology, which means you need to study it further. Regarding the fact request, why do you want me to provide the sourcing? I'm not responsible for that issue, am I?" Tell me you meant this as a joke. I'll reply to the rest of it if and when you do. Marskell 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Course language and blackmail are not a solid base for meaningful conversation. Respect for other editors and addressing points directly may be a better way to go. Aquirata 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
For ten days I have wasted most of the minutes I have spent on the Wiki tracking down sources for you. Do you understand how breathtakingly insulting "why do you want me to provide the sourcing? I'm not responsible for that issue, am I?" sounds? Yes, actually, you are responsible, if you want the sentence to stand. And given that virtually every talk post of yours has demanded sourcing from myself and other editors I hope you'll pardon the incredulity. Hypocrisy, I'd say, is the first thing that erodes the base of "meaningful conversation." Marskell 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My first thought is Mars or fire signs prominent. Aquirata 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology proof

Piper, am I to take your last edit to mean that you believe there has ben serious research, the results of which stand, which have shown correlations? Before this whole spectacle of debate begins, I would like to know whether you believe these experiments to be reproducible and if so,why you have not visited James Randi to pick up 1 million dollars. Lundse 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gauquelin, Ertel, and their opponents did serious research, did they not? The Mars eminence effect stands. The Mars red hair results still stand; it's been replicated with similar results and drawn very little criticism. The article argues that some astrology results have been verified. Nobody trusts or cares about Randi. What would you like it to say? Piper Almanac 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Part of the intro was ambiguous, rewrote to "the question of whether there is an empirical basis for astrology can be examined by statistics". Piper Almanac 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"As shown in the following article, some of these statistical tests, using scientific methods, have repeatedly confirmed the traditional meanings of some astrological indicators" is flatly POV. Readers can decide for themselves what has or has not been proven once we settle the intro and edit the remainder. Marskell 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It's POV. So is the next paragraph with the skeptic POV. Your point is...? Piper Almanac 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Piper, subject of the sentence. "Skeptics say" or "astrologers say". NOT: "It is." Marskell 21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, look now. The astrologers' position is very mild (in contrast to the skeptic position) and there's a reference as requested. I may be in a minority of one here, but I think it's unusual to have citations in the overview of an article. If something in the overview needs a citation then it should probably be moved to the body of the article. Piper Almanac 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for the source. Ertel, hm? I'm not sure if he supports the plural in the sentence, but until you find a better one we can use it. I'm also going to add "Astrologers have argued" to the statement beginning "Regardless..." A source for it would be nice too. It's not mild in that we present it as a statement of fact. It's also logically dubious, as noted above. Marskell 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why can you not provide a cite?

Just provide one. A good one. Huh? "Citation wanted" + "Citation not provided" equals "Citation wanted" remains. Marskell 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The work of Hankar

Starting on p. 218 of Recent Advances..., Dean describes the work of Col. R.E. Hankar as representing "an outstanding major attempt to derive astrological principles empirically." He spent 30 years "testing and refining his observations against 5000 timed charts of public figures." The general character traits of Hankar "tend to confirm tradition except for the Moon, Neptune and Pluto." He "found that a planet's external effect differed greatly according to its sign and house position."

What is intriguing about Hankar's results is that (1) his basic conclusions agree with the Gauquelin findings, and (2) the two seemed to have been unaware of each other's work. In effect, they independently confirmed each other's results to some extent. "Hankar found that the only planets which could dominate the chart were the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn... It is notable that these were the only planets found by Gauquelin to be significant for professional people... In general, their findings do not disagree except for the Moon."

A.H. Morrison "tested Hankar's system over several years and confirmed its effectiveness." (The Hankar Crystal, The Astrological Review, Vol 44 No 1, pp 24-27 (1972))

Is anyone aware of any further work done along these lines? Aquirata 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Moon

Galileo's opinion of the theory that tides are caused by the Moon was terse and definite: "Astrological nonsense." (Eysenck & Nias)

Among others, Bradley, Woodbury and Brier did significant work on how the Moon's phase and rainfall are correlated. Their research was published in Science in 1962. Further work confirmed their findings:

"It has been well documented that rainfall is correlated with the Moon's position in its monthly cycle. According to many studies, rainfall maximizes midway through the 1st and 3rd quarters of the lunar synodic month. In other words, about a half week after new and full moon rainfall reaches a peak." http://www.astrologysoftware.com/resources/articles/getarticle.asp?ID=173

Weather prediction is part of astrology. A part of astrology's objective validity is what was at stake above. Perhaps another section to include in support of astrology? Aquirata 02:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The scientific establishment

Food for thought:

"Orthodox scientists' [...] attitude [to astrology] has been hostile in the extreme. John Gribbin, who with Steven Plagemann wrote The Jupiter Effect, [...] mentions a telling episode. Plagemann, then working for NASA, was approached by a colleague working in the same building. 'You know,' he said, 'I’m really glad to see that stuff in print. I’ve been working on predicting solar flares for years, and I’ve got a file of evidence which shows a definite relationship with Jupiter-Saturn alignments. But I daren’t put that in my report — it’s more than my job is worth.' John Gribbin continues his account: 'Steve, of course, is now farming in Ireland, while his anonymous colleague still has a desk job in NASA.' This is the climate of the inquisition, not of factual, unbiased enquiry; many of the people in the scientific establishment would have fitted well into the panel which condemned Galileo! We have become aware of this climate of censorship and intolerance, both through reports from individuals directly affected and from remarks warning us that even criticizing astrology in detail and showing familiarity with its pronouncements, would undermine our scientific standing and reputation. So much the religion of the open mind." (Eysenck & Nias)

This also explains the authoritarian and uninformed stance of the infamous Humanist article: prominent scientists could not have possibly been familiar with astrology because they wouldn't have made it to the top otherwise. Aquirata 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More food for thought

I once sat in on a class where the professor at first described astrology fairly objectively and then proceeded to attack it with great mockery and scorn and all the usual criticisms. Something about the delivery drew the criticism of the visiting professor who audited the class with me. Just when the lecture began on astrology, the professor had suddenly remembered to tell his students some important details about the upcoming exam. Students fear exams, and thus astrology became psychologically associated with fear. The lecturing professor was not aware that he had conditioned a negative affect, but said he had not done it intentionally. I had missed this myself, but it made me wonder how the fear of astrology is unconsciously spread throughout the academic community.

Another university class I audited was in the planetarium. As soon as the switch was thrown to recline all the chairs and the students were getting cozy in the dark, but before the program began, an astronomer appeared out of nowhere and began a tirade against astrology. Here were the students meekly lying prone and vulnerable, unable to get up, while being lectured, scolded and challenged actually, on the evils of astrology. The skeptic position and authority was made psychologically unassailable.

Why does this happen to the students? Because it happened to their teachers in much the same way. Piper Almanac 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furze-Morrish

Dean: "Furze-Morrish compared the compatibility or conflict [...] between married couples with their aspects by synastry... The results show a consistent tendency for compatible relationships to coincide with a predominance of harmonious aspects... A comparison [...] indicates that both groups are significant (p<0.001 and p=0.05 respectively)." (Correlation Test of Human Affinities and Celestial Patterns, Aquarian Agent Vol 1 No 9, pp 16-17 (1970)) See also: http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/marsef07.htm

[edit] The work of Dieschbourg

Dean: "The most extensive statistical study of astrological aspects is due to Dieschbourg of Luxembourg [1976-77]. He investigated the occurrence of aspects among group of eminent professionals vs a control group. The study involved nearly 12,000 cases (about 300,000 aspects) and took 8 years."

"The results show that of about 270 tests, 5 were individually significant at the p<0.001 level and 17 at the p<0.01 level, which is significant at about the p=10-5 and p=10-8 levels respectively."

Any follow-ups on this? Aquirata 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Usuall questions - Notability, Reliability. Jefffire 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-ups

Aquirata: I think you are bringing forward some good information from Recent Advances that both astrologers and skeptics should have a new look at. However, I don't think this article is the place for it. This information is now rather old and is not from primary sources. Also Dean himself has apparently said that Recent Advances is outdated. Thank you for discussing this first on the Talk pages and seeking opinions from the other editors. This is a controversial topic and I've sensed the strain on each of the current main editors, including myself, as issues escalate and rules are read and judgmentally interpreted. Seeking ideas from the other editors is one thing that helps to reduce that strain, but there are limits to that too. Sometimes to avoid escalation it's best to just change the topic for awhile, as you've done here, and let the dust settle. Maybe the touchy issues can be revisited later from a new perspective. Let others change the topic too when it's needed. Piper Almanac 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More research

OK, thanks. I think there is value in noting nuggets of gold even if they are dated because they may point to fruitful lines of research. However, here is some more recent material:

  1. Astrologically Predictable Patterns in Work Related Injuries http://www.safire.net/sara/
  2. A Link between Birth and Death http://cura.free.fr/xx/18cas3en.html
  3. Astronomical Contributions to Research on the Nature of Astrological Phenomena http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/ipastronastrol.htm
  4. Total Distribution of Humans by Field of Fame or Eminence http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi106.htm
  5. Population and Zodiac Rhythms http://www.aureas.org/rams/castille01us.pdf
  6. Sunny Day for a Wedding http://www.aureas.org/rams/castille02us.pdf
  7. Lunar Effects http://lunar.behaviouralfinance.net/
  8. Trading with the Moon http://www.amanita.at/e/reading/02/e-0210-moon.htm
  9. Planetary Aspects and Terrestrial Earthquakes http://cura.free.fr/xv/13brianj.html
  10. Investigating Psychic Ability in the Birth Chart http://www.astrodatabank.com/AS/ResearchStepByStep.htm
  11. An AstroSignature for Mathematical Ability http://www.astrosoftware.com/Proveast.htm

Lots of food for thought. And here is one more for the skeptics regarding what some astrologers think what astrology is:

Aquirata 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lots here. Give me some time to review. Piper Almanac 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly scanned these articles. Here's my impressions, for what they are worth.

  1. Hard transiting Sun to natal Sun and work injury article looks interesting. Could use this.
  2. It is known that dieing people try to stay well until they have achieved an upcoming birthday. Maybe.
  3. Magnetic fields and such, a bit too speculative, how verify?
  4. These don't seem to be astrological patterns. Success seems to be more to do with houses than Sun sign.
  5. These may just be astronomical artifacts; the Venus pattern in particular appears to reflect its speed during its five-point retrograde-direct pattern.
  6. Marriages between same or close Sun signs predominate. Could use this.
  7. New Moon has higher stock returns than full, 2 articles seem to corroborate. Could use this.
  8. More trading on waxing Moon, less on waning Moon, suggestive but not a scholarly article.
  9. 50% more earthquakes at applying aspects looks interesting. Could use this.
  10. Psychic test is a demo article, no result claimed, could use as "other" link.
  11. Math test is also a demo article - "other" link.
  • Astrology and divination, skeptics won't read this. This is the second time I've tried to read it. It doesn't explain much.

Piper Almanac 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I guess the question is how to take the more useful ones forward. One article on a subject is interesting but not enough, there's got to be other sources citing these works. Thoughts? Aquirata 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
What's interesting is that most of these articles examine a simple correlation between one or two astrological factors to something verifiable. They should be simple to verify using standard statistical methods. Aquirata 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide some information to the reliability and notability of the sources. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it is a policy which needs to be followed and none of these sources appear reliable. Jefffire 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity of self-reporting questionnaires

Many of the "failed" tests of astrology compare astrology texts or astrologers' interpretations against self-reporting questionnaires. The validity and objectivity of these questionnaires has been criticized, as can be read in the Wikipedia article personality tests. I've added some references to this in the article. Piper Almanac 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The intro encore

"Astrologers have argued, that regardless of whether a scientifically defined causal mechanism..." Can we return to the old wording? "Some say this, some say that"? And again, can we source it?

Also, I'm not going to revert war over it, but we either are or are not talking about mechanisms. I don't see how we can logically say we are not and the first sentences should reflect that. This isn't necessarily an invitation to include X astrologer. We start with a general theoretical section re possible mechanisms (gravity and electromagnetism say) and then decide to include things as they are presented. Marskell 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rough sketch User:Marskell/Astrology. Marskell 09:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this sentence is misleading. What about: "Some astrologers have argued that the empirical basis of astrology can be examined by correlating statistical tests with astrological claims." Then I would ask, have they really 'argued' for this with an argument or do they 'suppose' or 'believe' that it can be studied this way, demonstrated by willingness to test astrological claims? Zeusnoos 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The question of scientifically defined causal mechanisms is irrelevant and is only included on insistence by the skeptic side. There's no mention of it other than the intro. For such mechanisms to exist they still need to have an "empirical basis" in observation. Any mechanism must be observed to function reliably. This is happening in astrology without the mechanisms. Both Newtonian and relativistic gravity lack a mechanism of local causality. Gravity is neither wave nor particle. Our scientific understanding of gravity is purely mathematical (a "mathematical principle of natural philosophy" as Newton phrased it). Why should astrology require a mechanism of local causality when normal science apparently does not require it?
Three of the four "arguments for astrology" are based on scientific method and support astrological claims. In each case the claims are currently standing. Four of the six skeptic "arguments" (except the Gauquelin one, which I'm not sure what the conclusion is) are based on scientific method, but the tests are of things for which there are no astrological claims. I would say that the scientific method is succeeding in verifying astrological claims. Naturally, astrologers accept the verification of astrological claims. Piper Almanac 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So, um, you don't want this or anything like it in then? Strikes me as relevant—if it weren't, why did you support Aquirata's fork to a page called "Proposed mechanisms"? And I don't understand what you mean by "a mechanism of local causality". Gravity, to quote our page, "works universally on all matter and energy." It's "locality causative" in any given locale. Marskell 14:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This is getting a bit philosophical and I'm not sure we want to go here, but... Proposed mechanisms are fine, but mechanisms do not in themselves validate. Observation validates. That's why I supported moving proposed mechanisms as a different topic. Maybe someday a mechanism for gravity will be found, but gravity goes through all manner of solid matter and the void of empty space undiminished except for the inverse square law, or is seen as the curvature of space-time affecting matter and energy. This apparently defies mechanical cause and effect. Local causality was defined by Laplace. In his view, there needs to be some material involved in the push or pull of transmission. There should be no "spooky" action at a distance, which is what we have now as normal. Gravity has a purely mathematical mechanism and "works" only because it is validated by observation. We accept that gravity is a "cause," but it is a mathematical association and thus a mathematical cause. The same reasoning can be equally applied to astrology. The chart mathematically calculates factors. In theory, these factors can be validated mathematically by using statistical observation. One could claim that the "mechanism" of astrology is mathematical.
No, I don't think mention of "mechanism" belongs in the article. Yes, I would say that astrologers accept scientific method and elimination of errors in it's body of knowledge. Piper Almanac 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You might see graviton (not that it's definitive). Note gravity does not defy mechanical cause-and-effect; it (along with the other fundamental forces) defines mechanical cause-and-effect. Gravity is. Of course, there's the "ultimate why" (why this gravitational constant and not that?) but I don't think we're going to find many sources in that regard...
And yes, of course observation validates—it validates mechanisms (or at least an anterior cause). Kepler's laws are (were) a consequence and a validation of Newtonian gravitation. Put another way, this page concerns the "Objective validity" of what, exactly, if "a mention of mechanism" does not belong? We don't even have a proper definition of astrology here (and I'm getting snapped at asking for one) so what are we left with? As I said to Aquirata, you could easily argue the Mars effect validates Roman mythology if you don't want to discuss mechanisms.
I agree that mechanism is not relevant in this context. I believe the 'Proposed mechanisms" article was changed to "Proposed theories of astrology" so it can include mechanistic theories, like such proposed by Lanscheit as well as non-mechanistic such as Jungian synchronicity. Zeusnoos 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're seriously abrogating a discussion of mechanisms than this should be renamed. We're not discussing the objective validity of anything if we're only looking at disputed outcomes and not considering the "how and why". Marskell 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've actually been contemplating a rename for a different reason. And that is that the title objective validity of <anything> is argumentative by nature. We have seen that in the discussions it is very difficult to avoid arguing about even the smallest points. So perhaps Research into astrology or Astrological research would do more justice to the topic and the editors at the same time. I'm comfortable with the current title without discussing mechanisms as long as proposed mechanisms are referenced (which is what Jefffire advocated). The practical issue with including proposed mechanisms (which I am for in principle) is the extent of material we would need to cover. This is not yet reflected in Proposed theories of astrology, but you can see from the discussion how large it could be. Aquirata 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distance

And there's the other thing: astrology is roundly criticized because of the inverse square problem. If our sources mention it enough, then we ought to as well. Marskell 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me just chime in on that one because there are so many 'criticisms' of astrology that are just plain nonsense. Good examples of uninformed questions and answers can be found here: [2]. The distance problem disappears once you consider quantum entanglement, in which particles can seemingly 'interact' instantaneously regardless of spatial separation. The final word is still not out on this one, so it would be futile to debate here whether this effect is real or apparent. I just wanted to point out that modern physics admits unusual phenomena to enter discussion even when it appears to contradict principles previously thought valid.
So certainly criticism of any kind can be entertained; just be sure that it is relevant to the discussion and can be adequately sourced. I don't need to quote Sagan about mechanism again, do I? Aquirata 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes—consider that and the distance problem disappears entirely; the particles of Mars entangle with hair pigment. The problem of 250 billion stars in our galaxy and (what you think?) hundreds of trillions of bodies Ceres size or larger, disappears as well I suppose. Here's where you tell me that there are different forms of astrology in other systems. Marskell 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You want to talk entanglement now? Please understand that entanglement is not about every particle in the universe, but about a very small number of very specific situations in which a very small number of (very small) quarks can in some way "act at a distance". Unless you have reason to believe a significant amoung of the quarks making up Mars and most of the quarks of the red-hair-controlling parts of people's DNA are somehow from a recent weird quantum event you have no case. Oh, you don't anyway, since where Mars is and where the DNA is is irrelevant to the quantum effects - meaning that invoking it as an argument for astrology is... complete nonsense. Lundse 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, your blinding assumptions do not let you entertain what was being said. Did I say astrology can be explained by quantum entanglement? No. So what are you arguing about? Aquirata 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I got the weird idea that you might think entanglement could someone help out astrology against the criticism of "action at a distance". The distance problem disappears once you consider quantum entanglement, in which particles can seemingly 'interact' instantaneously regardless of spatial separation. But I probably just misunderstood that, what were you really talking about? It's just that the words like "distance problem", "disappears", "quantum entanglement", "particles", "interact" and "spatial separation" got me confused - you were saying something entirely different, pray tell me what... Lundse 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"I just wanted to point out that modern physics admits unusual phenomena to enter discussion even when it appears to contradict principles previously thought valid." Quantum entanglement was an example for that. You made the subconscious connection to an explanation because of some superficial similarities, but this was not said or implied. You are wrestling with a phantom, and it is not me. Aquirata 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My bad, it's just that when you said "The distance problem disappears ..." I sort of thought maybe you were saying that the distance problem could be explained away by entanglement and thus that action at a distance would still make sense (thus making astrology plausible again). But of course you already knew how ridiculous action at a distance is outside the quantum world, right? You would never consider that it might happening, say, at a planetary scale... Lundse 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I sort of thought that when he said "the distance problem disappears" he meant "the distance problem disappears." LOL. It must be a fire sign problem.
May I add (just cause we all seem to get off posting bullshit on this topic) that even if we accept an answer to the problem of distance we render the problem of extra bodies more acute. OK, some synapse of mine that makes me an optimist (actually I'm a not, so boo for astrology) is quantumly linked to a hydrogen atom in the atmosphere of Jupiter and this works regardless of distance. So what about Tau Ceti and the Dogstar and the uncountable number of extrasolar bodies my brain may have quantum links with? If distance is irrelevant, the 7 x 1022 stars in the universe all ought to have an equal effect (jeepers, what a natal chart). But I suppose it's just nonsense to bring up this complaint. Marskell 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a given that the Sun carries the most significant effect when it comes to earthly affairs (chiefly by its light and heat). The Moon is an obvious second due to its visibility and vicinity, tying her to numerous cycles in plants and animals, not to mention the tides (notwithstanding Galileo's objection). But this is not necessarily astrology yet.

According to Hankar, however, the order of planetary intensities is as follows:

  • Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Moon, (Sun, Pluto, Uranus, Neptune, Mercury)

Only the first five on the list could dominate a chart according to him, which also roughly accords with the Gauquelin findings. Gauquelin's order of influence for professions was:

  • Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon

And for heredity:

  • Mars, Venus, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn

Just as a speculation, let us entertain the following overall order (an amalgam of the above three lists):

  1. Mars
  2. Jupiter
  3. Venus
  4. Saturn
  5. Moon

Having an order of influence already suggests some kind of a physical effect. That the three bodies closest to Earth and the two heaviest bodies of the Solar System populate this list is also telling. If there is anything to Hankar's and Gauquelin's research, then the astrological effect must be decreasing with distance, and it could also be correlated somehow with mass. Now I realize that the Moon overshadows everything else in tidal effects, and I'm not suggesting anything similar. All I'm saying is that the astrological effect (if it exists) appears to be a function of distance and mass (among other things). I also realize that the Sun and Moon are supposed to have the largest influence according to astrology. However, the Hankar and Gauquelin findings only validated a small slice of astrology, so this is not necessarily a contradiction. And no, this is not contrary to what I said above. And yes, this is a speculative answer to the distance objection and the extra bodies objection. Aquirata 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be nonsensical to say that this order doesn't make sense? Venus is twice as close as Mars and roughly nine times as massive...
But forget that. Is Hankar arguing in favour of an historical point? Are "planetary intensities" an historical part of astrology? Not that it proves anything, just curious.
Good to see you started off with the Sun and Moon. Indeed they are one and two in affecting our planet—elementary Earth science will tell you so. Indeed, without the Moon stabilizing Earth's obliquity we might not be here (I can source that ;).
But what has this to do with astrology? You want to give me a grade two science lesson and say "this is true, so astrology might be"? Marskell 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Are "planetary intensities" an historical part of astrology?" Not in the way presented by Hankar or Gauquelin. In the Hellenistic period, the Sun and Moon were considered more important because they set the tone of the whole chart (if born in the day, Sun dominated, by night the Moon) and each planet was in the Sun or Moon camp. There was no such ordering of the planets in terms of intensity in general, but each planet had intensity based on its position in the chart. A planet near the ascendant or midheaven was in the strongest position in the chart. Planets also gained or lost power due to their positions relative to the sun and moon and based on their relative 'speed'. Other cultures which have some type of astral worship or astrology (not horoscopic) typically gave priority to either the sun or the moon. There were arguments against astrological causality in terms of physical influence as early as first century BCE. Zeusnoos 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If you actually read what I wrote and resist your temptation to give patronizing and sarcastic remarks at the expense of understanding, then you might just hone in on this sentence: "All I'm saying is that the astrological effect (if it exists) appears to be a function of distance and mass (among other things)." Aquirata 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have been sarcastic. I'm sorry. But sometimes it's hard to take seriously rebuttals that are as problematic as the point being debated. "Let's do the accounting but guess at the numbers" sort of thing. That's sort of patronizing too, but I don't know what to say to a lot of this. "Mars" first, in terms influence? Why? Cause its red? Mars is beautiful at close approach (in some ways more than Venus, which is the brightest but not the most unique "wanderer"). To my mind, astrology has perhaps privileged Mars (erroneously) because of such distinctions (its the colour of blood--why else would the Romans choose it for a war deity?). Such is folklore--and folklore is wonderful. We wouldn't have the Shakespeare we have without astrology and Roman mythology.
But the fact of the matter is that Mars is neither the closest nor the most massive body in obvious range. When you tell me some astrologer in the 70s choose Mars top of his list it actually further confirms to me that astrology is a folkloric error that continues to be perpetuated. When its observed that the Moon affects the Earth in various ways (obliquity, tides, perhaps rainfall, as you mention) I find the shout from the stands "hey, so maybe astrology is true?" actually cheapens things. We don't have to accept something with no obvious "causal mechanism" whatsoever (that my or your personality is affected by the position of such and such) to accept the beauty and mystery of the Moon. Marskell 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be unaware that these lists were not just compiled by fancy but were the results of painstaking research. Gauquelin as you know spent an entire lifetime, and Hankar 30 years of his life, on astrological research. You cannot by any stretch of the imagination call this 'folkloric error'. They did not have any preconceived ideas, and the resulting numbers called the orders of influence. The only caveat is, as I have pointed out, that they only validated a small part of astrology so their results cannot be considered definitive for the entire discipline. Just because Mars topped two lists, one cannot conclude that this planet has the greatest influence in astrology. And my post was not an attempt at a scientific proof at all; I only wanted to show that significant validations of astrology seemed to support a distance and a mass factor.
Regarding Moon effects, a correlation with rainfall certainly validates that part (meteorological) astrology. However, to my mind the real proof is not that, but a full demonstration of the intricate symbolic language of astrology, which to date just hasn't happened. Aquirata 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, here I am being petty again. "Regarding Moon effects, a correlation with rainfall certainly validates that part (meteorological) astrology"—a textbook example of logical fallacy. See correlation implies causation. Marskell 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, where did you see "causation" mentioned? Aquirata 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't. That's the point. Some form of astrology is "certainly validate(d)" but you make no reference to a causative mechanism. So, uh, what is being validated? That the Moon affects rainfall? That, as an observation in itself, validates nothing astrology has to offer. Perhaps it correlates to something astrology has said. But that is not validity, which is why I pointed you to the fallacy page. Correlation is actually a perfect title for a dubious source. You show me two things correlate and you show me...nothing. My friend, I'm waiting for you to introduce a form of causation that sources have validated, or that, at least, sources have been shown to debate. Marskell 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see Objective validity of astrology, especially: "regardless of whether a scientifically defined causal mechanism can be defined for astrology, the empirical basis of astrology can be examined by correlating statistical tests with astrological claims." Aquirata 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have roundly stated that that statement is a non-sequitor. In fact... Marskell 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New source

Here is an excellent source to use in this article. Marskell 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on this one. Piper Almanac 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What sort of sources are we looking for in "How astrologers view"?

Do Gauquelin, and others inspired by him (Hill and Urban-Lurain) not have falsifiable hypotheses? Their hypotheses match astrological claims. You can see where this is going as more researchers join in. Please explain.

Self-reporting questionnaires reflect individuals' views of themselves and their relationships, which may be flawed. I've given the Wikipedia source for this and I don't see a problem. Please explain. Here's the actual quote from personality tests:

These workers have studied a large body of investigations into self-evaluation, indicating that individuals may have flawed views about themselves and their social relationships, sometimes leading to decisions that can impact negatively on other persons' lives and/or their own.

Piper Almanac 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The new source is good, thanks. The source at the top of this thread was a joke BTW ;). Having had my fill of non-sequitors on this talk I was LMAO when I saw it on The Onion. Marskell 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with empirical claim

"Traditionally, astrology has evolved through a much slower process of either historical or personality observation, identification of exemplary cases, synthesis of contributing factors, and the resolution of critical discussions among peers."

I think I understand what the writer of this statement is trying to express. However, having looked at the history of astrological techniques, I know there is no way this statement can apply to a large number of techniques, traditional interpretations and prediction guidelines. Much of the astrological tradition did not and could not develop empirically (this can be verified by the traditional Greek and Latin texts from the 1st century BCE to at least the middle ages). This statement, particularily, the critical discussions, may apply to certain sets of astrological researchers who have been able to communicate and share observations more quickly in the past 15 years or so with the internet and more astrology publications. However, many astrological techniques and sets of meanings of interpretation are accepted on authority, and become 'tradition' in this way. I think you will have a hard time proving this statement when the interpretation already guides observation. If you think someone with a particularly configuration should act like X, you will see them acting like X, thereby confirming a preconception. This effect is not ruled out in the way astrology has 'traditionally evolved.' Zeusnoos 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Put five astrologers in a room with a chart and you get pretty much the same level of impassioned discussion as we've had on this discussion page, with a lot closer proximity among the participants. There are often heated arguments over what is responsible for which peculiar trait. Astrologers do not agree with each other so easily, but somehow it all reaches some sort of resolution and the astrologers usually go home happy, having shared their knowledge and learned from each other. It's not very scientific, but astrology is continually changing like this. You have no idea what is going on by looking at histories of astrological techniques. Piper Almanac 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Your experiences are so different from my own when it comes to agreement and conclusion of interpretation among astrologers. You're so optimistic! I wonder if there is a significance difference between such discussions among published professional astrologers who have more at stake (promoting their interpretation or technique's at UAC or ISAR) and the astrologers one may find at a local Friend's Meetinghouse social. Secondly, do you really think something like "6th house means health" was derived empirically over a long period of time? Zeusnoos 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Conferences like UAC or ISAR are simply presentations, though most of the big ideas are discussed in small unorganized groups between the lectures. I was really refering to the second type, weekly society meetings at the local community center where client charts are presented, or the charts of a known people, often both types drawn on the board as mystery charts. Event charts are also examined. I've seen looks of shock and horror on the faces of innocent guests as the "discussion" heats up, until they realize the astrologers have been doing this weekly for years and are great friends. Despite all the literature, astrology has a strong oral tradition too. I do believe such a process of sharing empirical observations and testing ideas does derive meanings, like the 6th house means health, and computers. This is astrology by best fit, and there's no attempt at consensus. Sounds a bit like Wikipedia? Piper Almanac 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making. What I'm getting at is how the 6th became associated with health in the first place. Or how the houses were invented in the first place. This was not through the process you describe of community sharing of observations, but a rational or semi-rational schemata that is not empirical. Zeusnoos 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
How was the sky mapped in the first place? Here's my theory. It was mapped by observing natural symmetries: horizon/meridian, solstices/equinoxes, and aspects (phases) between the planets. The divisions are based on 12 and 360 because these are harmonic divisions and useful for analysis. Once the sky was divided, the positions of the planets could be observed as "factors" and compared against significant events on earth such as disasters, great successes and defeats, births of notables, etc. None of this should be surprizing. Where are you trying to go with this? Piper Almanac 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The 12 houses were invented around the first century BC - a slightly older division of houses was 8 rather than 12. The meanings of the eightfold (the 8th being death) were then transposed on the twelvefold (where the location of the eighth as death was spatially located where the 12th is today) and combined with the meanings assigned by one or two people who decided to use 12 rather than 8. The assoc. of 8th with death is a remnant of the eightfold while the twelvefold assigned the 7th to death, not the 8th (this meaning is preserved in Hellenistic influenced Indian astrology). The reasons for the assignments was a rational schematism of birth to death, not of long-term empirical observation. By such rationales, the 12 could have just as easily taken on the meaning of birth (daily birth of the Sun) if the inventor was thinking clockwise. Many of the techniques such as aspects that are still used today developed from such theory rather than observation. They were most typically passed down by acceptance of authority of the 'ancients', esp. in the first few centuries CE. Some innovations in the late antique and Arabic astrology were given authority by being attributed to 'ancients'. All of 'Vedic' astrology rests on such authority with an active obfuscation of the historical origins of the techniques. You're not acknowledging the historical contingencies for why certain interpretations and symbolic associations become tradition.
Back to my main point. The sentence in question is: "Traditionally, astrology has evolved through a much slower process of either historical or personality observation, identification of exemplary cases, synthesis of contributing factors, and the resolution of critical discussions among peers." When I read the word "traditionally" I think of the entire tradition and this sentence does not reflect the time period from Hellenistic to Late Middle Ages when astrological technique developed from rationales that were not based on empirical observation and critical discussion. I also think the sentence should be qualified with the clause "astrologers think that astrology has evolved..." Zeusnoos 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There is reason for using 4, 8, or 12 divisions because they are all harmonic divisions useful for analysis. Twelve gives finer granularity than the other two. Gauquelin used even finer divisions. It depends on the accuracy of measurement and ability to make the empirical observations within the finer frames of reference. Nothing astonishing about that. Like many other systems of measurement and analysis, astrology has changed and evolved over the years. Your main point is answered by noting that astrologers have different view on how observations are interpreted and do not automatically agree with each other, but engage in discussions. This is nothing new.
I think you may be ignoring significant historical developments when you reduce it to "useful for analysis". 20-21 centuries ago, astrological meanings were not established by empirical observation, and the house systems were not developed because they were 'useful' for recording empirical observations. Doctrine was primarily created because it made sense as a synthesis of neopythagorean, peripatetic, stoic, and middle platonic philosophies, as well as trying to make sense of Babylonian doctrine when the rationale for it was not clear. Back to this article, do you agree to "Astrologers claim that astrology has evolved..." or "Contemporary astrology has evolved..." with some mention of the contemporaneous oral tradition that didn't really develop until astrology reemerged in the 20th century? Zeusnoos 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any doubt as to whether astrology changed and evolved over the years? Compare Ptolemy with a modern text. When any era has tried to explain astrology, contemporary philosophies were used. It's no different now (psychology and statistics) than 20 centuries ago (neopythagorean, stoic etc.) or anytime in between. Astrology has to connect or it is useless. Is there also some doubt as to whether ancient astrologers discussed their observations and views orally, but only wrote them down? Isn't such doubt stretching credulity? Piper Almanac 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the ancient astrologers shared there material orally or in written (both, I'm sure, but many had made changes to techniques or interpretations strictly from the written tradition, as is evident in their own writing - Dorotheos says x, but Kritodemos says y, but I say z three centuries later). The issue is that there are clear cases in which interpretations did not and absolutely could not have arisen from empirical observation. Someone did not collect observations from a number of charts in which some bad event occured, then reason afterwards that there must be some place or point in the chart to be discovered that correlates. Rather, someone first invented the point, the Lot of Nemesis for instance, then sought examples in charts when it was configured to cause bad things. I hope this is clear enough an example. Doctrine, based on some rationale (be it for symmetry, completeness, or whatever) developed prior to observation in charts and sharing of those observations orally or in writing. Zeusnoos 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars and red hair

Jeffire has deleted the Mars red hair section, stating simply that it does not have reliable sources. This is untrue. Sources were requested and reliable sources were provided according to Wikipedia guidelines. The red hair research is well known, having been published in the three leading English language astrology journals. Well-known astrology critics have responded to the test and have published their criticism. The Mars red hair test has been replicated and confirmed using data from other countries, under the supervision of a qualified Ph.D. Results were published in a peer-reviewed, statistically oriented journal. At this point all criticism has been answered and the results still stand, although more research is invited. Instead of deleting this article because it does not agree with his views, Jeffire should provide criticism to the section from reliable sources. I am reverting to restore the section. Piper Almanac 16:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources are documented in the References section. Piper Almanac 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific data. Jefffire 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Reliability of the data is not a function of whether or not the data is astrological. Are journals that are peer-reviewed by highly qualified academics reliable sources of scientific data? Piper Almanac 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Depends on the data and the academics. Articles about Evolution and Geology from Creationist journals will obviously be heavily biased and innaccurate due to the low quality of the reviewers and their bias. On the other side of the spectrum an article on Quantum Dynamics in a biology journal would not be reliable either. In this case we have reviewers who are not scientists and who emotional investment in the entire situation. Such articles are not relaible for objective data. Jefffire 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are in fact arguing that reliability of the data is a function of the data being astrological. Data is data, and as such it can be examined and criticised. Where is your examination of the data? Why did you remove the section again? Please restore, this is not over. Piper Almanac 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Please share your views. Piper Almanac 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes no sense to remove this section when this paragraph fully covers doubt about the sources: "None of the red hair studies were published in scientific journals. Because the studies may not have been subjected to the usual rigours of scientific peer review[citation needed] that articles in scientific journals are put through it is not possible to rule out errors that would render the results invalid." Zeusnoos 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Zeusnoos agrees to restore the section along with the criticism. I had an issue with this criticism and had requested a citation for the claim that the studies were not subjected to the usual rigours of scientific peer review. I have indicated in Zeusnoos's statement where this tag appeared before the last deletion. As this is a claim, it needs to be examined. So far, only one side has presented its evidence (within the section). Piper Almanac 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say (not as a yay or nay, necessarily, to this point) that this debate reinforces the need to merge the rebuttals into the main points. OK, say we accept it--it should be stated immediately whether it is a dubious source. Yes, data is data. But data published in dubious sources must called so if they are to be accepted at all. Marskell 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless whether or not this is a proper section in the article, discussion must take place before making major changes. Jefffire has a tendency to ignore others' hard work and opinion. Is there anything that can be done to stop this behaviour other than raising an RfC? Aquirata 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Piper and Zeus. The section properly described the situation, and Jefffire's argument doesn't hold here. Aquirata 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, my arguement is correct. By Wikipedia guidlines on reliable sources, the sources here are not reliable. Indeed, they are probably comlete hogswash. Since the scientific content of the section cannot be verified from reliable scientific sources it needs to be removed until scientific sources can be found. Jefffire 12:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, There are three editors opposing your view and none supporting it. Yet you determine that your argument is correct. Which policy or guideline are you applying when you make this statement and continue to disregard the opinions of other editors and revert again despite the facts? Your analogy about evolution and creationist journals doesn't hold because we are talking about astrology and astrological journals. Or would you be opposing the referencing of creationist journals in articles about creation? Or perhaps evolutionist journals in articles about evolution? A scientist would call your arguments pseudo-scientific. Again, you will have to reach consensus here before making major changes. If you revert again, you'll be in violation of the 3RR policy. Aquirata 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again I ask for reliable scientific sources to scientific statements. Astrological sources are suitable for astrological information (such as a belief that red hair is more common in people born under mars, or whatever) but are not suitable for scientific claims (about a correlation or lackthereof). You may cite astrological journals to show that astrologers believe in mars/redhain links, but you may not cite them to attempt to prove a link. Only respected scientific journals are suitable for such a thing. To give you the a fair chance to find such souces I will simply put a verify tag in for now. But unless it can be sourced it's days are numbered. Jefffire 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
For your benifit, from WP:V-
Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.
Jefffire 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Correlation is the Astrological Association Journal of Research in Astrology. It is associated with one of Britian's leading universities, Southampton University. Articles are peer-reviewed and authors are leading researchers, many of whom have advanced degrees. Some of the authors: Prof. Chris Bagley, Nick Campion, Patrick Curry, T. Patrick Davis, Bruce Denness, Mike Harding, Robin Heath, Theodor Landscheidt, Clare Martin, Frank McGillion, Nick Kollerstrom, Prof. Peter Roberts and Prof. Percy Seymour.

Correlation is one of the only research journals that publishes negative findings as well as positive findings, something rare in academic journals. Correlation is frequently cited in scholarly works both pro and con towards astrology. It is cited without caveat in The Scientific Exploration of Astrology website http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htm and in CURA http://cura.free.fr/cura-en.html, both of which are generally negative towards astrology.

The Objective Validity "Arguments Against," contains Rob Nanninga's "Astrotest" research, which was published in Correlation. The seems to be no problem accepting that article. I do not believe that this important source of peer-reviewed research can be ignored in any serious article on validity of astrology. Piper Almanac 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Outlandish claims beg strong sources. Correlation is not a strong source. Jefffire 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I find it problematic that Correlation describes itself as "or astrologers seeking a deeper understanding of astrology, how it works and what it means" - nothing about whether it works. It's editor is a practising astrologer and thus hardly neutral. I do not believe it can be used a reputable source, certainly not alone.
And to Jeffire, when Aq. pulls his "we are more than you" card again, please know that although I do not have the time to patrol this page you are not alone. Lundse 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
On Correlation, I fully agree with Piper. It is the foremost astrological research journal, period. If you doubt the reliability of it on what you call 'scientific matters', how about the reliability of Science and Nature on astrological matters? How are these journals qualified to publish astrological articles when their editorial board doesn't include any astrologers? This is exactly the problem with selectively accepting articles within journals: you can make your 'data' fit any claim you like. I could certainly pick and choose articles from what you deem reliable scientific sources to show that science is hogwash. A source is either acceptable or not, you can't have it both ways. Aquirata 16:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Science and Nature are fully qualified on statistics and double blind tests. That is what is being done in the critical studies and you do not need astrologers to do that. Science journals probably would not be useful for a list of the beliefs that astrologers hold (that's where the astrological journals come in) but on matter such as the objective validity of something they have vastly greater authority than a biased and unrespected astrological journal. Astrological sources for astrological beliefs, scientific sources for scientific evidence. Jefffire 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Aquirata is correct. Nature failed to acknowledge that astrology does not claim to correlate to self-reporting tests like the one used in the Shawn Carlson article, which Nature published. Because no such claim is made anywhere in astrology, all such tests are invalid. The reason for this remarkable oversight is because there are no astrologers on the editorial board to prevent this sort of error. All astrologers can do is point to the error in the expectation that it will not be repeated.
If there is something else about the Mars red hair test, besides the purported problems already brought forward by astrology critics Dean and the late F. Gauqeulin and addressed in the Correlation article, then anyone with access to Wikipedia is free to mention them and add them in the article. This would be welcome. As an editor, I am strongly opposed to censorship. Where reason fails, censorship takes over. If "outlandish" findings were eliminated from circulation, then science would never have happened. Astrologers do not consider the claim or the finding outlandish, but expected, normal, and confirms observation. Scientists may regard the findings as "counter-intuitive" as they have many other unexpected findings that do not support their current beliefs. Jefffire, please don't cut holes in this article, just becaue they are too much for you to contemplate. Piper Almanac 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Since there appears to be very little published on this topic, may I suggest that you add some specifics about Dean et al's objections in a Skeptic's response section. I found one criticism, but it's of an ethical rather than scientific nature: [3] The study is published and available for scrutiny, search for artifacts, replication or refutation. Zeusnoos 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The argument you cite is essentially G. Dean's criticism, published in a letter to the FAA Journal, only Dean extended the "discrimination" argument to other species, particularly white mice. I've seen it and I'll try to dig it up. I don't know if Dean was serious or joking, but I found it amusing. Hill took it seriously and responded in subsequent articles.
Would you still agree to reinstating the topic and include the skeptic view of it? To get around the reliability of sources issue, it could mention that other than the Correlation article, which was written in response to criticisms of the first test and imposed more stringent control protocols than those originally used, the souces are not peer-reviewed. I don't think censorship has any place in an article, where positions can be reasonably stated and responded to. If a finding is offered, the reasonable response is to look for weaknesses, not to censor outright. Don't you agree? Piper Almanac 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I agree not because I think this study is proof of astrology, but because for those who are interested in conducting statistical studies on astrological doctrine, there are few resources available, and because it reflects research attempted other than the oft-debated Mars effect. The caveat of not peer-reviewed should be included. Just because it has not received attention from skeptics yet doesn't mean that it doesn't add value to this topic. Zeusnoos 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
To state (or re-state) a few points:
  • There is Wiki-consensus and Wiki-policy stating that articles on topics of dubious validity can reference dubious sources in articles about themselves. See here and here. Correlation is, I think unquestionably, a dubious source but it is not immediately removable on a page dealing with a pseudoscience (or an "alternative form of knowledge" or whatever you like).
  • But there must be a proper attribution and caveat. So, say: "Astrologers have claimed an X effect. It has not yet been examined in scientific publications." This would be workable. But again this requires merging the rebuttal into the main point. Marskell 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just in case anyone missed it, Marskell compares the peer-reviewed journal Correlation, which is under tha auspices of The Research Group for the Critical Study of Astrology (RGCSA) at Southampton Univerisity and the direction of Professor Christopher Bagley, to the Wikipedia example of a tabloid as a dubious source and concludes that Correlation is "unquestionably a dubious source".
Marskell also points to Wikipedia guidelines about self-published sources. The Correlation article was an independent study authored by Mike O'Neil and Beverly Steffert Ph.D. and was completely out of the hands of Judith Hill. As for her other Mars redhead articles, Hill submitted her articles and had them accepted by journals that she had no association with other than as a contributor. There is no basis to the claim that any of the articles was self-published. Piper Almanac 00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming this was self-published. The language in that section is relevant is all. And so what if I'm comparing it to a tabloid? What should we compare it to? It obviously isn't a disinterested source. Marskell 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comparing Correlation to a tabloid is like comparing Nature to a fashion magazine. It just shows you know nothing about astrology and astrological journals. And which scientific journal would you describe as a "disinterested" source? Aren't their objective the promotion of good science? Aquirata 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As Lundse has stated: "'astrologers seeking a deeper understanding of astrology, how it works and what it means' - nothing about whether it works." It is an explicitly partisan source. Marskell 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Correlation is specific to astrology research. Astrophysical Journal is specific to astronomy research. Marskell, does Astrophysical Journal fail in your opinion to be a "disinterested" source because it's only about astronomy? As to "how astrology works," this can be understood on various levels. You are trying to imply, while ignoring what Correlation publishes, that Correlation has a policy of screening out negative results, but in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Correlation has published many tests with negative findings, including the Astrotest used in this article. How many negative findings are reported in Astrophysical Journal or "disinterested" medical journals? You are trying to put the shoe on the wrong foot. Piper Almanac 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Bias can occur at a subconscious level as well as a conscious one. I don't believe that Correlation will be deliberately setting out to be biased, but that their beliefs will lead them to make some erronious judgements. This bias, which is evident from their introductary blurb onwards, is what makes them an unsuitable source for scientific information. Jefffire 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought for a moment you were talking about selection bias when accepting articles from Correlation as reliable sources. My my, how the mind deceives! Aquirata 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Zeusnoos's enquiry, Dean argued against the Mars redhead results, in a letter to the FAA Journal (Oct 1988) on the following five grounds:

  1. Tradition. Dean claimed Ptolemy associates red hair with Mars descending, contradicting Hill's claim of tradition. This claim was easliy looked up by Hill and found to be false.
  2. Red hair. Dean questioned why Indians, Chinese, Malays and white mice don't have red hair, and why were chemically dyed redheads not included? Hill responded that it is not genetically possible for these other groups to have red hair.
  3. Frame of reference. Dean claimed that the Gauquelins' expetancies are in mundo whereas the redhead frequencies were in zodiaco and this could have resulted in an artifact. I didn't see any response to this, but it is incorrect as the red hair data was measured in relation to the horizon and is obviously in mundo.
  4. Controls. Dean claimed that because the redheads were living, they represented a youthful sample and could have had a higher incidence of induced birth, which would invalidate the controls. Hill responded by saying that she had allowed for the unknown number of induced births in the original article, which would be somewhere between 0% and 0.87% calculated from the Gauquelin birth data. She asks Dean how this slight variation of less than 0.87% accounts for the large 17.40% variation observed.
  5. Prediction. Dean asks why if 17% of the US population has Mars with 30-degrees of the ascendant only 5% of the population has red hair. Hill responded that besides the observed result, Mars can also be associated with aggressive etc. behavior instead.

The criticism by Françoise Gauquelin concerned the well-known astronomical/demographic artifact known as the "Mars-dawn factor," which was established by the Gauquelins. This was actually discussed by Hill and factored into the original article.

Piper Almanac 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Why do I feel like Alice in Wonderland after reading this? On the first point they are both wrong. I looked into this last night - will explain but perhaps in a different location since it strays off topic. Zeusnoos 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can just summarize what the tradition is regarding Mars and red hair. I think appearance is traditionally related to the ascendant. Piper Almanac 13:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is too long already - and it's tangential - I put my comments here User:Zeusnoos/Ptolemytranslations

Since there has still been no reliable sources provided for the section it should be removed in short order. Jefffire 11:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been provided. Your statement only reflects your opinion, so I wouldn't bank on them to support a removal. You have failed to provide specific 'fact' tags, so the 'verify' tag has no place in this section. Rather than concentrating on removing content, you should try adding value to this page. Aquirata 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The section makes scientific claims, but backs them up with flimsy articles from unrespected, unscientific journals. Astrological journals are not reliable sources for scientific information and never will be. All I ask is for scientific sources for scientific claims, using the same guidelines used for the article Evolution or Age of the Earth. By your logic Young Earth Creationist journals would be acceptable sources for these pages. Jefffire 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

If Jefffire want to criticise the sources in the article instead of the findings, fine. Put them in "arguments against". I believe there's a consensus on this. Wikipedia readers of this article expect to read about who has tried to validate astrology and who has tried to invalidate astrology. That is what the article is about. The scientific aspect of this controversy has nothing to do with sources, but everything to do with the methods and findings. Piper Almanac 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we put an end to this pestering once and for all? What is the proper procedure to establish Correlation and other astrological journals as reliable sources of information: an RfC, mediation, arbitration, or something else? Aquirata 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
We seek further input from the wider community. The question is "Are astrological journals considered Reliable Sources for scientific information?" I shall Put up an RfC. Jefffire 15:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. With a little luck soon we shall have the input from scientifical minded Wikipedians on whether astrological journals are reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 15:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What was your reason to rush this through without input from other editors? Aquirata 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I had thought the whole point was to get input from other editors... Jefffire 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
First on the process, then on the wording of the question. I have made this fairly clear already. Aquirata 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A possible reason for inconclusive tests

After we separate the wheat from the chaff in astrological research, there are still a number of reliable studies left that came up empty. There are two possible explanations for these:

  • There is no astrological effect
  • The astrological effect is more complex than these studies could detect

Skeptics will jump to the first conclusion without hesitation, which is logically faulty unless 1) astrology has been tested in every possible way, and 2) the evidence is overwhelming. None of these appear to be the case (yet). So if we want to keep an open mind (which Wikipedia editors are advised to do in accordance with WP:NPOV), we will have no choice but consider the second possibility. As I was browsing through again the always fascinating Recent Advances, some support for this assumption came in the form of Nelson's work with radio disturbances (why is this not mentioned in the article, btw?). Despite later failures to replicate his results, Nelson's findings are still interesting from this perspective. His main findings:

  • All planets had an effect (including Mercury and Pluto)
  • A hard aspect usually had no effect by itself, but worsened reception when linked to other aspects (min 3 linked aspects were required)
  • A trine linked to a hard aspect worsened reception, but it improved reception without a linked hard aspect
  • 95% of the effect fell within 5 degrees of orb
  • The slower planets tended to establish an overall standard which the fast planets nudged into effect
  • The typical pattern was this:
  1. One or more hard aspects to a planet further out from the Sun
  2. Two or more significant aspects to any other planet
  3. The absence of a simultaneous unaspected trine

Note the complexity of the pattern for an effect to manifest.

Dean concludes: "The results support the view that connected aspects are the key to aspect interpretation (including midpoints), which suggests that present techniques are merely a crude simplification of the truth. Thus a native currently described by a number of separate aspects and midpoints may more properly described by a much smaller number of connected aspects."

Notwithstanding the fact that Nelson's work hasn't been confirmed, the above still suggests that we are only scratching the surface when it comes to testing astrology. Nobody to my knowledge has conducted a thorough statistical test of aspect patterns. Testing for effects of trines, for example, one is bound to find nothing due to the third point above (effects cancel out).

Food for thought. Aquirata 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

John H. Nelson measured planets in relation to the Sun, not in relation to people on Earth, but the work is suggestive of the complexity of combining multiple planetary factors. Although Nelson was not an astrologer he did share his work with astrologer and stock market analyist Arch Crawford. Nelson's work is well known, and I'm not sure, but his observations may have contributed to the modern astrological concept of the "Mars trigger," by which potential circunstances that are set up by the slow outer planets are thought to be precipitated by the faster-moving Mars. Nelson should be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but probably not here. It is more to do with theoretical mechanisms, like Seymour's approach. I don't recall if Dean mentions who tried to replicate Nelson's work, but it would be nice to see Nelson's work re-tested because he's set down the makings of a potential hypothesis.
Some of the statistical studies you mentioned earlier would be more in keeping with this article. These studies are not well-known like Gauquelin, Ertel, Hill, Urban-Lurain, or Tarnas, but some appear to be well-thought-out and researched. I'm not familiar with any of them, so it may take some time to examine them. Piper Almanac 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Eysenck & Nias also discusses Nelson in detail. They note that the criteria for a successful prediction of radio reception quality (devised by the US Bureau of Standards) was useless in the first place, which explains Nelson's high forecasting accuracy. Dean carried out an extensive replication in 1981 (rechecking nearly 5000 predictions), and the correlation was 0.01. Eysenck & Nias also checked a smaller subset and also came up empty.
There is very little material on the web, here is what I've found:
This source http://members.aol.com/robertsonjohnk/part2.htm#4 gives a list of references for 'scientific' research into astrology (including Nelson), and some of these such as Gauquelin and Brown (which should be covered in the article) are well known, but there are others worth looking into, as well. Aquirata 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

I'm concerned about introducing Nelson, Brown and others who studied known physical effects, such as tides and magnetic storms, into this article, which is already long. While their work is very interesting and influenced astrology, there's not a good connection between their work and what is written in astrology texts. These researchers were not trying to validate or invalidate astrology like Gauquelin, Hill, Urban-Lurain, Carlson, Dean, Kelly, or Nanninga. Links might be good. Piper Almanac 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps a separate article on astrological research may not be a bad idea. All research could be described there, but only the ones most relevant to traditional astrology would be included here, the rest referenced. Aquirata 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

After all this talk about merge and reorg, and then nothing happening, I have once again restructured the article to make it more readable. Other than what is spelled out in this note and correction of spelling mistakes, text has not been changed but possibly moved within the article. All headings have been promoted due to the deletion of the FOR and AGAINST headings. I specifically removed one sentence, which doesn't add anything to the discussion and seems to have no proper place: "Below are some common arguments used by skeptics." This could possibly be rephrased and put into context, but I wanted to minimize effort spent in view of a historical skeptic tendency to waste others' efforts without consideration. Aquirata 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this work. Bringing the two sides into closer proximity is a good step towards merging. Piper Almanac 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. A functional organization will work much better, and that's the direction we're heading in. I also believe this to be consensus opinion. Aquirata 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Urban-Lurain's thesis book includes a 9-page literature review to 1981. He categorizes the work into three classes as follows:
  1. Tests of astrological theories by comparison with psychological inventories
  2. Tests of astrologers' abilities to classify individuals or predict their behavior
  3. Tests of astronomical patterns as they relate to objectively defined human behavior
Should we attempt the same within the article? Aquirata 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: reliable sources

It has been asked at RfC whether astrological journals are reliable sources per WP:RS. I would say yes and no: they are reliable as far as describing what astrologers believe about astrology, but they are not reliable in regard to the validity or scientific credibility of astrology. The reasons for this are pretty obvious, I think. Incidentally, I'd say this article is pretty much superfluous; it looks like a POV fork of Astrology. The lead section of Astrology presents the reader with a neutrally stated and verifiable summary of the validity of the subjectand Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology is sufficient, in my view, as a coverage of this issue. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support (ya, I know it's not a poll, but this is what we've been saying all along). Marskell 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per JzG's concerns over the necessity of this, I have started an AfD. There is, of course, a very good chance of keep, but this is one of the best ways to find out what community thinks of the info we're presenting. Marskell 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would you act so rashly on a comment by an editor who has nothing to do with this article, and without input from other editors? This reflects very badly on you, especially that your wording here and on the AfD are in complete opposition. Aquirata 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the wrong question to ask. One could also ask: Are scientific journals reliable sources of astrological information? It is impossible to answer such a general question. The question should state whether Correlation, The Mountain Astrologer, etc, is a reliable source. The 'scientific information' qualifier is also misleading since most astrological articles published in astrological magazines do not deal with 'scientific information'. It is a case of setting up a question to make sure the answer one hears will confirm one's beliefs. Proper questions would be: Is The Mountain Astrologer a reliable source of astrological information? With respect to 'scientific information': Can research papers published in Correlation be considered reliable sources? Aquirata 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the objective validity of astrology, no they can't. The editor is clearly biased and judging from the papers you keep referencing they they not have good peer review standards. Objective validity is a scientific question, and astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 12:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrological test for alcoholism

This section has again been deleted for reason of bad sourcing. I have restored it for two reasons:

  1. Source given is a book, widely available (e.g. on Amazon.com today) for review and critique since 1984
  2. The editor deleting the section (JzG this time, Marskell and Jefffire before) didn't explain here first and reach consensus before this drastic action

If you still feel strongly about your opinion, please address any issues you have with the section here. Let's discuss first, then reach a common ground, and finally act. Aquirata 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreplicated, dubious publisher (American Federation of Astrologers). This goes to the heart of why this page is a POV-fork. This is marginal information that, basically, sympathizers want to find a place for. That something has an ISBN does not grant us the right to construct a soapbox (WP:V "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it"). The next section, "Historical research", is another example. So he's published a book. Great. And we're devoting 250 words to it why? Marskell 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your objections:
  • Unreplicated: Although I'm not aware of any replication, this would be very unusual given that the results were published over 20 years ago. Even then, this wouldn't mean that the study is insignificant. The lack of replication should be pointed out until we know better.
  • Dubious publisher: The AFA is the U.S. national organization of professional astrologers. From their website [4]: "Established in 1938, the American Federation of Astrologers is the oldest association in the United States which oversees accreditation of astrologers, sponsors scientific astrology research, and publishes more astrological books than anyone else in the United States." The roughly 500 books published by them are listed here: [5]. Hardly a dubious publisher.
  • Marginal information: Urban-Lurain's work is highly significant because it points to the most likely reason why so many statistical tests of astrology came up empty. His multivariate analysis was successful, while the univariate was not. This agrees with the work of Nelson, who found e.g. that a single trine was beneficial to radio reception, while a trine coupled with a few hard aspects was detrimental. David Cochrane (a highly respected astrologer) writes in his book Astrology for the 21st Century: "Given the failure of most astrological research to correlate astrological factors with behavior or personality characteristics, most serious astrological researchers believe that AstroSignatures [i.e. multivariate analysis] must be used instead of single factors. The most promising studies in astrology have involved a combination of many factors in an AstroSignature."
Aquirata 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is so far removed from a reliable source it isn't even funny. Outlandish claims require unreproachable sources, not pieces of waffle. Jefffire 11:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, no reasoning is given for your opinion, and you once more act without reaching consensus. If you disagree with the conclusion of the test, you are welcome to add criticism. Deleting the section demonstrates your lack of astrological knowledge and your inability to understand what constitutes a significant step in astrological research. Aquirata 13:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I make no claim to understand astrology. What I claim is an understanding of human psychology of irreason, the scientific method and Wikipedia's Verification policy. Jefffire 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for openly stating your lack of astrological knowledge on the Talk page of an astrological article. This certainly puts your deletions and reverts into perspective. Aquirata 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made no changes to sections relating to astrological beliefs and practices, all I have ever done and will continue to do is edit pieces relating to science (such as attempts to validate astrology) and Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 10:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy on articles being edited by unqualified editors? Or one on making drastic changes before talking to other editors? If there are, you would be advised to look them up. They may help to orientate yourself on your crusade. Aquirata 11:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have discussed the changes fairly heavily in these talk pages and I am an expert on validity, pseudoscience and irreason having studied all for many years. If anything I am the most qualified on this matter between the two of us. Jefffire 11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting... It does look like you lost the telescope. Aquirata 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet good money that my telescope is bigger than yours. Jefffire 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I should be more explicit so as not to hinder understanding. Aquirata 22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, specificicty is an anathema to astrology. Jefffire 22:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for Deletion

Just in case you missed, Marskell listed the article for deletion by quietly announcing this under the RfC for reliable sources above:

  • "Per JzG's concerns over the necessity of this, I have started an AfD. There is, of course, a very good chance of keep, but this is one of the best ways to find out what community thinks of the info we're presenting."

His justification for the AfD reads as follows:

  • "Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete."

He hasn't yet asnwered my inquiry regarding the initiation of AfD without input from editors actually editing the article. Aquirata 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can initiate an AfD and there is no requirement to garner consensus for the move on talk. That's actually a little counter-intuitive: it's the lack of consensus over policy that is part of the concern. That doesn't mean you may flippantly launch AfDs. The fundamental question is: do you feel the page violates (any or all) of the content policy triumverate (NPOV, V, and NOR). If you do, you should start an AfD. Personally (and I'm obviously not alone) I believe the page violates every one of these policies.
Finally, the nom is very loudly announced on the top of the page so there was no sneaking about. Marskell 10:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Lacking arguments, some people (and, these days, especially those who are a result of random mutations) will try any means to achieve their objectives. This is when RfCs and AfDs come in on Wikipedia, in an effort to pull the rug from underneath those representing opposing views. When the article reflected a highly scientific POV a few weeks ago, everything was fine. Now that it is balanced and is actually presenting relevant information on the subject, suddenly the need for other means of attack arose. Aquirata 11:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you moving on to attacking evolution now as well? The case for deletion is made fairly clearly on the RfD project page, namely that the content is non-notable with the exception of the mar effect, which has it's own page. The rest or the astrological "evidence" is built upon sources which fail WP:Notability and WP:RS. Jefffire 11:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The consensus among editors seems to be that Objective validity of astrology is a POV fork and should be removed. I take POV fork to mean that this article goes contrary to the main astrology article by trying to develop a conflicting POV. Many editors do not like the contentiousness that is reflected in the current title and shows in the article. Some editors say the short summary in the main article is sufficient. Others say the article can be redeemed by changing its name. I believe a name change will resolve the conflict. It has been proposed that the article be renamed Astrology research or Research into astrology. "Research" is NPOV and removes appeal to an authoritarian POV. I think this would work and the article can be saved. A lot of work has been done already to find good research and there is a growing body of research that can be added. It has been suggested that the article adhere to WP:RS Popular culture, which would be consistent with the main astrology article. It has already been pointed out that when the research is viewed as a whole, the larger picture helps to explain why some research has succeed and some has failed. I believe that NPOV reporting of the research can speak for itself. Piper Almanac 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a change is simply anouther POV fork. It would leave us exactly where we were before. It is a bad idea. Jefffire 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Piper: I disagree that there is a consensus among editors regarding the fate of the article. Most of those wishing to delete the article seem to think it's a POV fork, but there are plenty of other editors in favour of keeping. Aquirata 13:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeff: You keep saying the same things over and over without explaning why. As I have shown to JzG on the AfD page, your interpretation of WP:POVFORK is faulty unless you can back it up by quoting policy. Aquirata 13:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreement to rename to Astrology research and agreement to WP:RS Popular culture would not leave us where we were before. Piper Almanac 14:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extroversion studies

I put back the extroversion studies from the Journal of Social Psychology and Journal of Psychology that were hastily removed on the claim that these journals are not reliable sources. However, research psychologists nearly always mention toward the end of a study possible artifacts and factors that may have affected the results. This is the typical format of statistical studies in journals. I have these studies xeroxed somewhere in the archives, and recall that in at least one of them, one of the rationale given for positive correlation was that subjects may have been familiar with sun sign astrology, and therefore incorporated traits into their own conception of themselves. I don't have time to dig, and my memory might be faulty, but this should be included if true. Zeusnoos 13:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Jefffire

Enough is enough, and I think an RfC should be started on Jefffire's continued disregard of policies, butchering articles and pestering editors. Please let me know if you are in favour of this, or suggest another course of action to stop this vandalism once and for all. Aquirata 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Jeffire has insulted me and others, taken disagreements over contentions in articles to personal pages rather than debating them on the relevant articles' talk pages and totally refused to discuss his disagreements, solely repeating like a febrile parrot his juvenile contention that science is only what he says it is and nothing else. Doovinator 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to avoid this, but there doesn't appear to be another solution. Jefffire continues to go ahead and interpret policies and everything else his way while ignoring everybody else's views at the same time. He acts on his interpretation immediately and destroys others' work without discussion or consideration. I really don't think he is capable to cooperate in this context. It's possible that he is doing a good job elsewhere, but that's not the issue here and therefore is irrelevant on the RfC.
OK, so who wants to initiate the RfC? We shouldn't underestimate the time it will require to gather all the facts and compile the list of policies he violated. I'm pretty sure a case for banning him from the astrology articles can be made, but it will require some work. I'm thinking somebody who's been here longer than I have should do this. Aquirata 00:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Another course of action: change your comment to delete, start a talk sup-page of Talk Astrology, and, beginning with the name, we go over every argument before creating a page.
There are, buried in the mountain of bullshit we have posted here, things that can do with mentioning. But this page is getting worse, not better and there will be nothing approaching compromise with the content as it stands. We are now devoting 200 to 500 hundred words to every study that can be dug up. "Regular" science pages don't that. No good page does; this sub-page is now at 38K and longer than the main astrology article. Verifiability isn't the only issue—so is WP:NOT and undue weight. The recent extroversion example should be cut to a single sentence if kept at all. Why is this particular study notable? Where has it been commented on, replicated, rebuked? What is its impact factor? Thus, while Jeffire has been reverting a lot, Jeffire is correctly targetting content that violates policy.
So start again, and get the ground rules straight off the bat. Marskell 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree to an RfC on Jefffire. I also agree a big problem here is the name of the article. Piper Almanac 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A name change alone isn't going to suddenly make this content acceptable. Marskell 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree to many of your suggestions, especially starting over, drafting before going live, and cutting it down to a more encyclopedic style. However, with maybe one or two exceptions, I do not think most editors who have shown an interest in this page are qualified to shape it up and make decisions about impact and weight. I used to be a researcher in psychology before switching careers. At that time, I followed this sort of research on astrology. The extroversion studies were notable to research psychologists and attracted criticism (even from those who conducted the research). Also notable was the Gauquelin studies (my supervisor, a research psychologist at a large university, had a Gauquelin book on his shelf and lent it to me). I personally find the studies that have been considered of dubious sources valuable for their impact on astrology as popular culture, but I understand how that can be confusing when side-by-side with non-dubious sources. The editors here who claim to be scientists who have touched the topic of astrology do not seem to be versed in psychology, sociology or anthropology research. Zeusnoos 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say that knowledge of astrology is also required. Some of the topics are long due to ignorance of astrology and to present references remarked as questionable. Invalid hypotheses and assumptions are bring made. Sometimes no distinction is made between astrological variables, values, and factors (signatures). Matching tests introduce all sorts of assumptions. Piper Almanac 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that many of the studies are not testing 'traditional' astrology. Perhaps you are an exception, but it's my experience that most astrologers are not critical enough to make these distinctions either. While I do not think this article is strongly a POV fork (most editors who are voting against it are doing so based on the title and the bad point-by-point format of for-and-against) I think it does edge toward original research. Perhaps books on this topic should be written prior to encyclopedia articles. Zeusnoos 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
With due respect Zeus, a qualification requirement (if that's what you're suggesting) is the antithesis of everything Wikipedia is. This is explicit in Jimbo's commentary ("not anti-elitist, anti-credentialist") and what the encyclopedia says about the encyclopedia. I've certainly not claimed to be a scientist on this talk—but I have a Featured article listed under Physics and Astronomy, which, from a Wiki perspective matters more than what my degree is (or whether I have one at all). You can't write an FA without an understanding of NOR. And this page doesn't "edge toward" it—its fully, utterly immersed. As, our content policies state, "do not interpret in isolation". Dubious sources amplify the OR which amplifies the POV. I'm not seeing this as salvageable and Piper and Aquirata adding three hundred words every time they come across a new study they like isn't helping. Marskell 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A qualification requirement is not what I meant, but while on the subject, I think WP is an experiment based on a Habermasian ideology bound for successes and failures. A prominent failure is the waste of time arguing about what is notable or not notable research when there are people far removed from the field of study taking sides. In this particular topic, the scientific and otherwise studies that claim to test astrology, I don't see most editors demonstrating the skill and lack of bias (or maybe it's a matter of lack of time) to do a npov survey of the studies and make the judgment about the weight and impact of each. If I were wrong, then this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Or would it?
On a related topic, I wonder if the 100's of articles on specialized topics in astrology, of which many were recently tags as part of an Astrology project, will receive similar calls for deletion because they deal with topics in the practice of astrology that seem obscure to many. For example, Domicile (astrology), Exaltation, Triplicity and so forth. Zeusnoos 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to take this forward

Before we can talk about collaborating on this article, I see a few pertinent requirements that must be met:

  1. All editors agree to cooperate (i.e. talk and reach consensus before making major changes, maintain good faith, etc)
  2. The title of the article is changed to a neutral expression such as Astrological research or Research into astrology
  3. A list of reliable sources for astrological research is drawn up
  4. A list of notable astrological studies is drafted
  5. The current article is condensed to encyclopedic style and size, which then can be used as a starting point

Failing agreement on the above (or something similar), a suitable alternative, such as an RfC, will have to be found to move this project from the current deadlock. Thoughts? Aquirata 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against the name change, it is a rather obvious POV fork attempt. There is only one notable astrological study, the mars effect, and it is covered clearly here. All others are non-notable. Jefffire 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Until you provide some information from, say a journal citation database of psychological research, saying they are non-notable doesn't make them so. Even so, the impact factor is debated in science research, for instance, Seglen, P. O "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research," British Medical Journal, 1997;314:497
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
Zeusnoos 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, You haven't reached the second point yet. If you keep removing sections from the article without talk and consensus, you are demonstrating your inability to cooperate. This is clearly in the path of moving the work forward, so an RfC on your conduct will sooner or later be inevitable. Even though there are plenty of editors opposing this article, nobody else is engaging in the kind of militaristic activities you are. I doubt this behavior will be supported by the community at large. Aquirata 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Zeus that Jeff has a mistaken notion of notability and reliability of sources. Aquirata 15:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your ad hominem attacks and address my points. They are layed down clearly in WP:V and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. This article is violation undue weight and many section rest on studies which are completely unreliable. It is not sufficient to put a warning on the end on those section, they violate the policy- so they have be be taken out. Read the policy guidelines, it is written much more clearly there. Jefffire 16:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see ad hominem attacks? The fact is, you cannot cooperate with other editors on this article. If you think the article violates certain policies, then you have to make your views known, present evidence to that effect, ask for the opinion of other editors, and then reach a consensus before taking action. Stating that the article violates policies is merely a matter of opinion until other editors agree with you. So stop reverting an start talking. Aquirata 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is quite irrefutable that many section violate WP:RS. For one, they actually mention it in the article under those sections that they are not from reliable sources. Adding these warning does not make Wikipedia's policies go away. Sections which violate policy can be removed at any time, by any editor. Addrress these points rather than simply violation Wikipedia policy on strength of numbers. Jefffire 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] research articles for future work on this topic

I culled this list from this study which is available online: Not surprisingly, the authors reference Smithers and Cooper, Jackson and Mayo. I found some of my old research last night, mostly on lunar effects. can post more bibliography with these sources later.

http://www.psychology-science.com/1-2003/pdf_04.pdf

von Eye, A., Lösel, R., Mayzer, , F. "Is it all written in the stars? A methodological commentary on Sachs’ astrology monograph and re-analyses of his data on crime statistics," Psychology Science, Volume 45, 2003 (1), p. 78-91.


Basler, H. (1998). “Die Akte Astrologie” von Gunter Sachs aus Sicht der mathematischen Sta- tistik. Skeptiker, 11, 104 - 111.


Carlson, S. (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature, 318, 419-425.

Chlumsky, J., & Ehling, M. (1999). Die Akte Astrologie - Wissenschaftliche Expertise aus statistisch-methodischer Perspektive. [The astrology file - scientific expertise from a statistical- methodical perspective.] In G. Sachs (1999), Die Akte Astrologie [The astrology file] (pp. 221- 237. München: Goldmann.


Gauquelin, M., Gauquelin, F., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1979). Personality and the position of the pla- nets at birth: An empirical study. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 71-75.


Hume, N., & Goldstein, G. (1977). Is there an association between astrological data and perso- nality? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 711-713.


Jackson, M., & Fiebert, M. S. (1980). Introversion-extroversion and astrology. The Journal of Psychology, 105, 155-156.

Kelly, I.W. (1979). Astrology and Science: A critical examination. Psychological Reports, 44, 1231 - 1240.


Kelly, I.W. (1998). Why astrology doesn’t work. Psychological Reports, 82, 527 - 546.


Künstler, R. (1999). Astrologie und Statistik. [Astrology and statistics] In G. Sachs, Die Akte Astrologie [The astrology file] (pp. 217-219). München: Goldmann.


Mayo, J., White, O., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). An empirical study of the relation between as- trological factors and personality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 229-236. 28. Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A de- velopmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.


Pawlik, K., & Buse, L. (1979). Selbst-Attribuierung als differentiell-psychologische Moderator- variable: Nachprüfung und Erklärung von Eysencks Astrologie-Persönlichkeit-Korrelationen. [Self-attribution as a differential moderator variable in Psychology: A test and an explanation of Eysenck’s astrology - personality correlations] Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 10, 54-69.


Sachs, G. (1999). Die Akte Astrologie, revised edition. München: Goldmann. [Sachs, G. (1999). The astrology file. London: Orion.]


Saklofske, D. H., Kelly, I. W., & McKerracher, D. W. (1982). An empirical study of persona- lity and astrological factors. The Journal of Psychology, 110, 275-280.


Silverman, B. I., & Whitmer, M. (1974). Astrological indicators of personality. The Journal of Psychology, 87, 89-95.


Smithers, A. G., & Cooper, H. J. (1978). Personality and season of birth. The Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 237-241.


Startup, M. (1985). The astrological doctrine of ‘aspects’: A failure to validate with personality measures. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 307-315.


van Rooij, J. J. F. (1999). Self-concept in terms of astrological sun-sign traits. Psychological Reports, 84, 541-546.


van Rooij, J.J.F. (1994). Introversion-extraversion: Astrology versus psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 985-988.


van Rooij, J.J.F., Brak, M.A., & Commandeur, J.J.F. (1988). Introversion-extraversion and sun-sign. The Journal of Psychology, 122, 275-278.


Veno, A., & Pamment, P. (1979). Astrological factors and personality: A southern hemisphere replication. The Journal of Psychology, 101, 73-77.


Fantastic work, thanks! Aquirata 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reframed Introduction

I have re written some of the introduction to scope the article into a debate over reputably published evidence and responses to it. By clearly stating what this article is and what it isn’t we can avoid drifting into a POV in either supporting or sceptical direction. I have also split the general description of the debate into a separate section. Lumos3 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a name change. Astrologers are really not interested in "validity" of astrology. Astrologers would prefer to be detached from both science and religion, but this is not always possible because of the need to defend astrology against ignorant presumptions and claims, whether from science or religion. On the other hand, astrologers are interested in empirical studies, provided they are done properly with the necessary understanding of astrology. In modern times, both science and religion have moved away from the authoritarian concepts of law, legitimacy, and validity and more towards an empirical world view. This is where this article should be going. The "validity" of astrology represents a POV fork, just as if another article were to be written condemning astrology based on the Bible and allowed arguments only from the Bible. Most religious people and most scientists do not believe in attacking astrology based on their own beliefs. Because there are numerous empirical studies in astrology, there is no justifiable reason why this discussion should be based on principles. That just hypes the controversy. If the current editors want to be constructive and taken seriously, they should take the time to learn about the empirical studies that have been done and offer documented criticism of the methods and any weaknesses. Piper Almanac 14:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I support the rewrite of the introduction. With the new introduction, the redhead and alcoholism studies should be put in their own section since they do not have the same weight as the others. But if the article is to stay, a name change is necessary because the title implies that there is objective validity, not that there has been research (by statistics or 'empiricism') into astrology. Zeusnoos 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a good reword. I have taken the liberty to make the expression of the points you are making more succinct. Aquirata 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Avoid self-referential nouns to begin with ("this article"). I actually don't like this because it's attempting to justify one fundamental problem: the for and against structure. Marskell 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for titles renaming this article

There seems to be growing call that some form of renaming is needed. Please add suggestions below which can be used as the basis for a possible future vote. I have culled these from this page and the VfD page.Lumos3 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Research into the objective validity of astrology
  • Objective research in astrology
  • Astrological research
  • Astrology research
  • Simplest. Aquirata 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Research into astrology
  • does not have the ambiguity of 'astrology research' concerning what sort of research. 'into' implies about astrology not within astrology. Zeusnoos 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, less ambiguous. No pro and con or "validity" expectations, but a no-nonsense critical presentation of methods and outcomes. Piper Almanac 17:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Dreadful idea and clear POV fork attempt. Unreliable sources will remain unreliable and non-notable section will remain non-notable. Jefffire 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Astrology evidence for and against
  • Empirical astrological research
  • Empirical research into astrology
  • Astrology, the case for and against
  • Attempts to prove or disprove the objective validity in astrology
  • Research into the empirical validity of astrology
  • Evidence for and against astrology
  • This clearly is talking about evidence not speculation or sophist arguments and is supporting neither one side nor the other. Lumos3 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just tried to post this exact same thing, but there was an edit conflict. Imagine my surprise when I saw your post! I have changed the numbers into bullets because posting in bullet form underneath destroys ordering. Also added two more title suggestions made on the AfD page. Aquirata 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


  • I suggest Deleted article. This article has been deleted and should not be re-created. ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jefffire violates 3RR again

Just as we are trying to see various ways of collaborating on this page, Jefffire again has violated the three revert rule:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]

I will place a warning on his page. Aquirata 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather obviously I haven't.
3rr an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.
I see only 3 reverts here. Jefffire 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the policy: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." Aquirata 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have only made logic reverts based on wikipedia's policies which are discussed on the talk page. This is not excessive. I am in no way violating the policy. Jefffire 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course you are. You are not just in violation of the spirit of 3RR but also the wording of it and other policies as well. You asssume that your interpretation of policy supercedes everything else. This is a wrong assumption. Stop reverting and start talking. Aquirata 17:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, you are saving your reverts to delete the same topics day after day. Are you doing this in hope that one day your reverts will slip by unnoticed? Piper Almanac 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated the policy. Please cease attacking the person and discuss my suggestion. Jefffire 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the fourth revert that actually puts you in violation. But reverts are not an entitlement so obviously try to avoid them. --Marskell 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispute that this may be the common interpretation, but it's not the only thing the policy says ('reverting three times or fewer is not acceptable'). As I have pointed out to Jeff already on his talk page, there is a self-contradiction, and so interpretation can differ. He knows very well what he is doing: he is blocking content he doesn't agree with. And if he is treading carefully just to avoid getting into trouble with the first interpretation, that's not exactly demonstrating good faith, is it? This is in fact against some other policy which you will be able to quote by heart. Aquirata 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Self contradiction? What policy are you reading, it looks very clear to me. Please reading the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Jefffire 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This policy in a nutshell This policy in a nutshell:
Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.
(Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)

[edit] OR

The paragraphs beginning "the main weakness of the Dean and Kelly "time twin" study" were OR in their entirety: synthesizing, interpreting, and advancing a position. Criticism of the point can go back in but not in this form. Find someone who's criticized, cite it exactly, and leave extrapolation out. --Marskell 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the test was not designed using astrolgical criteria for time twins. For example astrologers could determine specific dates or time frames during which the time twins might have experienced significant life events. These could be examined for life impact and for similarity. This sort of study would be much more difficult to do but would test the sort of things that astrologers claim. Piper Almanac 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Can we agree that astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information? Jefffire 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Doovinator 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They are reliable sources of astrological claims, as scientific journals are reliable sources of scientific claims. Piper Almanac 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that scientific journals may not be reliable sources of astrological information? Piper Almanac 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Doovinator 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Astrology journals to describe what astrology claims; scientific journals to present data. Marskell 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Astrology books and journals to validate or invalidate hypotheses and methods used in studies reported in scientific journals. Science books and journals to validate or invalidate hypotheses and methods used in studies reported in astrology journals. There's no lazy way to get out of the work required for this article. Piper Almanac 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
We "validate or invalidate" nothing. Nothing. That's not our business. We've had this exact conversation, Piper. Marskell 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Understood. The proper sources will tell if a hypothesis is valid or not. Piper Almanac 18:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Doovinator 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's be patient and tackle first things first. Editors not passing the first hurdle will not be on board to have a say in this. Aquirata 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is moving off topic. Once again I point out that only reliable and respected scientific sources can be used to source scientific information. This has been gone over quite thouraghaly on Evolution and the Creation Science pages and the same general principals apply. Jefffire 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably these reliable sources you suggest would themselves use reliable sources for scientific data. For example the Dean and Kelly article on time twins cites Correlation several times for studies with negative findings, and Correlation is used in this article for the negative Astrotest findings. You are being selective with respect to Correlation by your persistent deletions of the Mars and red hair topic, which cites Correlation. You are applying a double standard. Piper Almanac 13:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I vote "yes" in regard Jefffire's question -- astrological journals may be reliable sources of astrological information, but not of scientific (or "objective") information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration outline

Time to see who's seriously considering to take this work forward. Let's take it step by step as per the above.

[edit] 1. All editors agree to cooperate

Those in agreement, please sign. Aquirata 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Aquirata 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Doovinator 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree to cooperate? How can one not. I think I should also make clear that I am opposed to slavery. (More seriously, see note below). Marskell 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a Yes or a No? Aquirata 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm also opposed to torture, the impaling of babes on spikes and dwarf tossing. Jefffire 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a Yes or a No? Aquirata 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The AfD

There is a good chance the article will disappear over the next two days though it still may not. It's in borderline territory but more than 70% delete for the moment. You might now paste it into a word doc if you're really enamoured of the material. Do note that a "substantially identical" recreation of the material, under any title, can be speedy deleted. Marskell 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you interpret 70% as consensus? The blurb on AfD says one needs consensus for deleting an article. Or perhaps you have asked that a certain admin be assigned to the task? Aquirata 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Three-quarters and above (assuming no sockpuppets etc.) and an admin will generally delete. Two-thirds and below and it will be a "no consensus keep". Between the two is borderline and an admin will use their discretion. There are no hidden motives here—I've edited the Wiki for 16 mos and closed some keeps myself. I was just giving a heads up that it may go and that simply recreating with one of the new titles is not on. Marskell 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/u/User%7EZeusnoos_ovatalk0614_d965.html"