Talk:Astrology

Since When Has It Been Pseudoscience?
The question is 17th v 18th Century. The Society of Astrologers, (a page I'll be creating soon and would love some help with), was formed in the 17th century in contrast to the Royal Society. Their purpose was to restore Astrology's legitimacy. According to at least one historian they failed. Their focus and arguments were primarily religious, but the fact that the Royal Society continued on without them and the Society of Astrologers went defunct IMO demonstrates that already in the 17th century scientists were not taking it seriously. Yes, there was an RfC, but now we have new RS, and more to come -- Massimo Pigliucci an expert on pseudoscience, feels that the term "pseudoscience" makes sense even back when Cicero was criticizing Astrology.DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here on page 220 apparently we get 1679 as the date of a "clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy" (quote from Astrology and science, not the reference) I'm pretty sure 1679 is in the 17th century, no? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source only mentions a book dedicated to astronomy that eschews astrology. It is certainly not a "clear rejection" of astrology, at least as far as the source describes it. Even if it did reject astrology outright, that doesn't mean the academy at large rejected astrology.
 * It took months of arguing to change the lead and its incredibly sneaky to wait until all that dies down for months to start editing it like no one would notice. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I want people to notice. I think we need to discuss this deeply held desire by some editors to, despite a high percentage of the RS that are currently in the article and more to come from me, promote a single POV from a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology. I actually think there is value to that position and that it belongs in the article, but it currently is overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. It gets a little complicated, however, whether or not we are talking about Western astrology. And the definition of pseudoscience is also tricky. And then there is the issue of distinguishing astronomy from astrology. But certainly as soon as you can say, "there was astrology and there was astronomy", you are firmly in the pseudoscientific zone. Saying this happened in the 17th century is quite modest, given that it actually happened as far back as the 1st Century when people like Cicero were plainly stating that astrology was in opposition to reason. Cicero wasn't saying "ignore the heavens" He was saying "astrology is bunk". And lastly, I haven't re-read the most recent RFC's, but I can tell you right now that they were not as broad as to say "is the lead perfect and should no changes be made to the body?" New RS requires a new discussion. So if that's what you consider "incredibly sneaky" lock me up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is completely ahistorical to claim that astrology has been opposed to natural philosophy for its entire existence. Even Thaggard et al admits this.
 * P.S. If you didn't know, Cicero was an academic skeptic. As with all schools of ancient skepticism, they denied knowledge was possible altogether. Cicero wasn't arguing for astronomy against astrology. He was opposed to the idea that natural sciences -- including astrology in the first-century -- could lead to knowledge at all. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm now home and can make a more substantial response to this. You state that a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology are overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. Firstly, there is no such group of historians who are overwhelming the consensus, whatever that means. There is a single -- small -- section dedicated to contextualizing astrology within a broader view of the history of science. The Reception in the social sciences subsection is preceded by three subsections (over 1,500 words) regarding the scientific validity of astrology as practiced today. The lede introduces pseudoscience in the tenth word. And even then, . There is no overwhelm[ing] the consensus. There is simply the consensus among historians of science that astrology, as practiced before the 18th century, was not pseudoscience, let alone in opposition to Natural Philosophy. This view is even shared by Paul Thagard, who writes:
 * "In the time of Ptolemy or even Kepler, astrology had few alternatives in the explanation of human personality and behavior. Existing alternatives were scarcely more sophisticated or corroborated than astrology. Hence astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times, even though it is pseudoscientific today. Astrology was not simply a perverse sideline of Ptolemy and Kepler, but part of their scientific activity, even if a physicist involved with astrology today should be looked at askance. Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category. Rationality is not a property of ideas eternally: ideas, like actions, can be rational at time but irrational at others. Hence relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result."
 * You mention the Society of Astrologers. You also seem to know that it was intended to defend astrology against criticism, not scientific criticism. The Royal Society initially overlapped with the Society of Astrologers in a significant degree, so while the latter failed, the former wasn't not taking [astrology] seriously, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed in contrast with the Royal Society. It is also doubtful you read the source you linked -- Pfeffer doesn't mention "pseudoscience" anywhere in her paper. In fact, the word pseudoscience was not coined until the late 18th century.
 * To concur with User:AndytheGrump, your edits are [n]ot an improvement.
 * Man, I love Template:Talk quote inline so much... MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You think there is a consensus amongst historians of science? Do you have sources for that? The two sources in the lead supporting the 18th century as the point of demarcation are not historians of science. One source is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and the other is a defense of "esotericism" by a "professor of the History of Hermetic Philosophy"!!!! Maybe you have better sources you could put in? Yes your Paul Thagard quotation is good, but he's obviously making a provocative polemic. And he doesn't support the 18th century. Thagard's position may be getting more of a foothold, but it's hardly a done deal. It's not a settled consensus, and so for us, as editors, decide Thagard's take in the correct one is not NPOV. We need to make it clear that throughout its history Astrology has had its critics. And as I've said giving the contextualizers a voice is also good. But right now the scale is tipped the wrong way. Per WP:FRINGE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is Massimo Pigliucci who is as well if not better credentialed than Thagard, from his substack: "“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.” That is completely correct, and as we have seen it is a principle that goes back at least to Hume and Laplace, though Cicero argues in a similar way in De Divinatione, where he criticizes the Stoics for believing in the pseudoscience of divination (he didn’t use that term, but that’s clearly what he meant)." DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pigliucci's self-published Substack blog where he puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start with Thagard:
 * There are others, but these are the main ones referenced in the page.
 * Anyway, just because you put the [history of] esotericism in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a real field of study. Hanegraaff's book is published by Cambridge University Press and isn't a defense of esotericism at all. Plus, you seem to imply he's a quack of some sort, and not a professor at the University of Amsterdam specializing in the history of astrology and such...in other words, the kind of expert one should reference -- if anyone knows the relationship between early modern science and astrology, it's Hanegraaff. Plus, the consensus among editors is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for many topics in religious studies.
 * There is already discussion about ancient and pre-18th century criticism of astrology on the page. Not an improvement. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we have two questions on the table. 1) was Astrology a pseudoscience before the 18th century? 2) was astrology criticized throughout its history prior to that?
 * As I said, the sources listed in the lead do not seem to support the text written there (18th century). Can you find support from your better sources? You've provided a nice list, however...
 * Thagard, who is pushing the historical relativistic point the hardest is a philosopher, but I'll accept him as relevant, and place against him Pigliucci who disagrees with him.
 * We are not allowed to decide which of them is correct nor give undue balance to one of their opinions. Especially since Thagard seems to have a spicy new take on it. He might be right to scold the stuffy old historians and their presentism, however, we don't just jump on any bandwagon that rolls by. Right now the longest paragraph in the lead pushes Thagard's position.
 * Now looking at your other sources. Do you have the books on hand? Can you provide author bios?
 * Tamsyn Barton, I can find nothing about then. Do you know what their credentials are?
 * As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.
 * But the following look legit to me:
 * Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.
 * Liba Taub also looks legit to me.
 * Hankinson is good too.
 * As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:
 * ":::::::"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization.""
 * As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.
 * But the following look legit to me:
 * Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.
 * Liba Taub also looks legit to me.
 * Hankinson is good too.
 * As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:
 * ":::::::"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization.""


 * I've already mentioned that Pigliucci's self-published blog (in which he places words in Cicero's mouth) is not an improvement or "on equal footing" with Thagard's paper, which is an academic publication. The former is only relevant for Pigliucci's own views. In any case, there are not two questions on the table. There is only one question: do relevant, reliable sources support a 17th century date for the ascendance of astrology as a pseudoscience? The answer is a resounding "no."
 * Tamsyn Barton is an anthropologist specializing in the history of astrology, an alumnus of Oxford University and SOAS University of London, with a PhD from Cambridge University. Hanegraaff specializes in the history of astrology and dismissing his research is inane.
 * Lastly the only thing that matters with the Pfeffer source is that isn't relevant, it doesn't mention pseudoscience at all.
 * Feel free to check the sources. But if you do not have any sources that explicitly support a date in the 17th century for the recognition of astrology as a pseudoscience (which is borderline impossible, since the word didn't even exist in the 17th century) then refrain from editing the page to suggest such. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 01:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As to Pigliucci's Notability you can't have a gripe, so under both WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PARITY, his "blog" is the professional opinion of a SECONDARY expert. And what he is saying there is completely in keeping with his published work and his relevant expertise. But don't worry, I have more sources coming. In the meantime...
 * Here is a Wikipedia essay that you might find useful. You can find it here: Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy. It's just an essay so doesn't carry the weight of Policy or Guideline, but still some food for thought, namely:
 * "Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway.
 * Being from a "major" (says who?) publisher is not proof that a source is reliable; it's just an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books – because at least one professional editor acted as a filter, and because other reliable sources cite material from this publisher on a regular basis."
 * Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:ABOUTSELF, [s]elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. Thus, it would be an acceptable source for a statement like Pigliucci has stated that he believes astrology was a pseudoscience in antiquity (or something, a single parenthetical is not really notable here.) It would be a reliable source for actually stating that astrology actually was a pseudoscience in antiquity, especially when a better-quality source (Thagard) says the opposite. A self-published Substack blog (scare quotes notwithstanding) where Pigliucci puts words in Cicero's mouth is  for the date in which astrology becomes a pseudoscience.
 * WP:PARITY isn't really applicable, unless you're implying that Paul Thagard is a fringe source (he isn't.) As per your own quotation, academic publication is an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books. In this case, the academic sources given absolutely are more reliable than a single, off-hand parenthetical self-published by Pigliucci. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yay, we agree! We can indeed follow policy and say, per ABOUTSELF that Pigliucci an expert in pseudoscience, philosophy and science, a native speaker of Italian and a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers in particular, says that Cicero considered Astrology to be a pseudoscience. Would you like to put that in or should I? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I originally stated, a single parenthetical is not really notable here. It should not imply that such a view is comparable to the scholarly consensus -- which is that astrology was only recognized as a pseudoscience in the 18th century -- which is clearly what you're trying to do. As far as I know, Pigliucci is only a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers insofar as he's associated with modern Stoicism, anyway. He's not really a notable source for elucidating what Cicero thought about astrology, especially apparent since he puts the word pseudoscience in his mouth despite the fact that such a concept would be completely foreign to a first-century BCE academic skeptic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a link to whichever of the many many non-indexed and often-paywalled posts in "Pigliucci's substack blog" that you all are referring to or quoting? I checked the history and no such thing has been posted; you both seem to know exactly what is being discussed, but there's no way anyone else can follow. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mme Dolya is referencing this substack post (which is not an improvement on Thagard.) MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The post is paywalled, but you say it's consistent with his published work. The topic in question seems to be Pigliucci talking about Cicero criticizing astrology. Any references to that, that normal people can access from say a university or public library? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know nor particularly care if it's consistent with his published work. I don't think it's an appropriate source and even if he did say that Ciceroc had a conception of pseudoscience in antiquity, I wouldn't buy it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is Fernandez-Beanato making the case that Cicero is actually talking about pseudo science. "Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criterian"
 * Here is Pigliucci building on this. Sorry this is paywalled. Maybe I can get you a pdf if you are interested.
 * Pseudoscience: An Ancient Problem DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the arbcom decision that gives astrology as an example of pseudoscience, and wp's rules and guidelines that require us to clearly describe it as such early in the lead, without waffling or qualification.
 * The long and frankly exhausting arguments by a couple of people who nominally declare enthusiasm on the question of "who decided this when?" are not convincing, and don't meet the bar to break this policy. It would make the article worse.
 * To those who have been advocating for weakening the clear description as PS, maybe your thesis on "it wasn't PS until 18xx" can go briefly somewhere in the history section if you must, but keep it out of the lead. 66.41.165.13 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no rules or guidelines which us to mark something without qualification -- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology  a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an  view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)
 * Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.) wound theology  ◈  04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no rules or guidelines which us to mark something without qualification -- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology  a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an  view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)
 * Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.) wound theology  ◈  04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know that ... Cicero himself was an augur, a member of the college of officials who oversaw augury ?It's a bit tricky to use someone like Massimo Pigliucci, who is not an expert on Cicero and published this in a non-academic magazine like Skeptical Inquirer. Damian Fernandez-Beanato is much better already, but still not by any means a specialist in Cicero, or even in ancient philosophy.It would be wise to compare Pigliucci's and Fernandez-Beanato's work with what some of the most respected ancient philosophy experts have written about this topic, such as Malcolm Schofield and A. A. Long (see (access possible via WP:LIBRARY) and  (already used in the article)). Another useful source may be, who is a Cicero expert but not a really well-established scholar as far as I know. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm late but here's my two cents: it's misleading to talk about "science" in the age of Cicero. While the ancients were doing what we'd call "proto-science", and while many Medieval thinkers were engaged in "natural philosophy" (what we call "science"), modern science as we understand it (a process involving empiricism, heavy reliance on mathematics, and results that can be tested and replicated) did not really emerge until the 16th Century at the earliest. So, the age of Galileo.
 * As to when astrology was widely recognized as "pseudoscience" -it's hard to tell. While Galileo was definitely doing empirical science (again, as we understand it), he was also involved in astrology. Even Newton was publishing on astrology in the 17th Century and it does not seem like this was anything unusual for a scientist of that age. I want to say the 18th Century was a turning point, and if that's what reliable sources say, it's probably accurate. The arguments about Cicero, while interesting, seem fringe. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Detractors, competitors and skeptics
The current second paragraph of the lead is oddly assertive about there being a single thing called astrology distinct from astronomy that was "throughout its history" a respectable pursuit. That is POV pushing and it is not supported by the actual body of this article. According to the current short description, astrology is "Divination based on the movements of the stars". There has been opposition to that throughout most of recorded history. Starting at least with Cicero. And then when the lead seems to use Shakespeare as support for Astrology's acceptance, it ignores that there are critical references to Astrology even there. But I digress. Let's see if we can't come up with something that is appropriately balanced! Here is what I have proposed: "Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for epistemic, political and religious reasons.      Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine."

There are no weasle words. Nor is there any Synth. This is merely a SUMMARY of most of the criticism that occurs IN THIS ARTICLE. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is WP:SYNTH and nonetheless is a weasel word (WP:EDITORIAL). This gives undue weight to the "detractors, competitors, and skeptics" who were the minority, whereas the majority considered [it] a scholarly tradition and [it] was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine -- which is what the lead here says. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing "nonetheless" listed as a weasel word. Do you see it there? Any word can end up being a weasel word, so I don't want to get too literal, but what I have provided is what I consider an accurate summary of what is on the page. I understand you think that there is a consensus is a consensus now amongst historians, but I do not see that consensus reflected in the sources on this page. I see that there have been critics throughout, especially if you are defining astrology as "divination". DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an ellipsis which indicates other words can serve the function. Your proposed edit is WP:EDITORIALizing and implies that detractors, competitors, and skeptics were the majority but that astrology continued nonetheless (WP:UNDUE.) That is textbook WP:SYNTH: your sources indicate that some people criticized astrology, but using it to imply that there was some sort of consensus -- there was not. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How would you word so as to not give the false impression that there were no critics of Astrology until the 1800's? Because that's the problem I have with the text that is there now. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the tiny minority of critics of astrology before 1800 is WP:UNDUE. Tryin to make a change :-/ 05:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems accurate and useful to me. Of course the article itself is dropping the ball spectacularly in its undue focus on these criticisms and in its utter failure to put them into context (which would also require explaining in the first place how and why astrology fitted in ancient and medieval worldviews), but the mere fact that there have been detractors with various backgrounds and motivations throughout its history is an important and notable aspect of astrology.
 * I don't see the use of 'nonetheless' here as anything other than contrasting the following statement with the preceding one. In my mind it doesn't at all imply that critics were somehow a majority. Ancient and especially medieval scholars were deeply divided on this topic, but there was no Royal Society or French Academy of Sciences or any other academy of sciences to settle the dispute or to form anything even remotely resembling a scientific consensus. Every proponent, every critic had their very own reasons to support or attack (certain aspects of) astrology, and I think "epistemic, political and religious reasons" summarizes that nicely (even though 'doctrinal' may be better than 'epistemic': Aristotelian thinkers like Avicenna and Averroes rejected astrology because it did not fit their interpretation of Aristotelian doctrine, even though the first great Islamicate interpreter of Aristotle al-Kindi had been a passionate promoter of astrology).
 * What it perhaps fails to do, as does the whole article, is to make it clear that none of the proponents or critics were either attracted or repulsed by astrology for the reasons that people are attracted or repulsed by it today, i.e. because it wisely rejects/fails to adhere to 'the' scientific view. There was no such thing, and so there was no divide based on that particular criterion. Critics were not 'yay, scientific' and proponents were not 'boo, pseudoscience'. It is only when that misconception has been cleared out of the way that one can even start understanding what the historical debates about astrology were actually about. In that sense, "detractors, competitors and skeptics" may be a little vague, or even misleading. The subject of astrology's various critics really deserves to take up more space in the lead, but it should also (in time) explain what each type of criticism involved, what really was at stake. Obviously though the corresponding sections in the article body should be rewritten first.
 * For now I believe the proposed paragraph is fine, even though I have some remarks. Most importantly, "and was common in academic circles" is an unfortunate expression because (as I explained) there were no academies before the 17th century, and certainly no such thing as academic circles. In the scholastic environment of the late medieval universities, astrology was actually not at all common, but of course the great majority of pre-17th-century scholars worked outside of that particular environment, in various courts, mosques, and monasteries, more often than not completely isolated from other scholars. I would just leave the phrase out.
 * Some smaller things: 'meteorology' and 'medicine' may perhaps be better linked as meteorology and medicine. A better order may also be "astronomy, meteorology, medicine, and alchemy". Finally, if all these sources are really needed, consider putting them all between one, perhaps in combination with the use of harvnb templates. WP:REFCLUTTER just really looks bad. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response Apagausma. I don't mean to steamroll Tryin-to-make-a-change, but for the matter of furthering the discussion, does the following text cover your points?
 * "Throughout its history, Astrology has had detractors, competitors and doubters who opposed it for political, religious, and epistemic reasons. Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in learned circles, often in close relation with astronomy, meteorology, medicine, and alchemy." DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "learned" is perfect. "Doubters" instead of "skeptics" isn't really better though (remember that Cicero's arguments against divination were derived from the academic skepticism he was favoring at the time). I didn't mean to object specifically to "skeptics" in my previous comment, but I did suggest "doctrinal" instead of "epistemic". What about that? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point about "skeptics" let's go back to that. I also think that "epistemic" isn't a perfect fit, because it's a little modern, fancy and perhaps overly broad. "Doctrinal" is accurate, but it doesn't cover what I'm hoping to capture with "epistemic." Should "doctrinal" replace "religious"? But then I need another word to get what I'm aiming at.
 * Many of the detractors were detractors along the lines of "this is bad reasoning". Cicero certainly was one such critic and skipping way ahead to the Shakespeare quotes that are being marshaled on the page to defend Astrology, but in fact, in King Lear, Edmund says: "This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeits of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars; as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance. Drunkards, liars, and adulters by an enforc’d obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of a whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star." (King Lear, Act one, Scene Two)
 * This isn't a doctrinal objection, it's more of a "it's silly to blame the stars for the "surfeits of our own behavior". And I have many other sources with similar objections that fill the gap between Cicero and Elizabethan times.
 * So what should we call that? "rational" "reasoning" "plausibility" "evidentiary"?
 * "...who opposed it for political, doctrinal and plausibility reasons."? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The King Lear quote reflects a classical criticism of astrology (you'll find this in Carneades, Augustine, etc.), which revolves around the concern that astrological explanations are deterministic in nature and as such deny the existence of free will, and therefore moral responsibility. I think the closest motivation associated with this particular criticism would be "moral reasons": it's immoral to blame heavenly compulsion for what are in fact one's own faults, and if we could justifiably do so, morality itself would become meaningless.
 * As for "doctrinal", it does not entirely replace "religious". Religious reasons would indeed often be doctrinal in nature, but not all doctrinal reasons are religious in nature. For example, Averroes's criticism of astrology as outlined in is explicitly based on the claim that astrology, with its concept of positive and negative planetary influences, is at variance with what has been demonstrated in natural science, namely, that the actions of the planets are all good, and that the existing things [down] here all draw their existence from their motion. The "natural science" here is of course Aristotelian physics as understood by Averroes, and so his objection boils down to astrology being at variance with Aristotelian doctrine. Criticisms based on perceived incompatibility with other sciences as understood at the time were common, such as e.g. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's criticism presented in the article under the header theological viewpoints, which is based on an argument derived from medieval astronomy (indeed it has nothing to do with theology or religion and should be moved to another section). Given the fact that what precisely constitutes 'science' in the medieval context is a bit of a thorny subject, such objections are probably best summarized as "doctrinal reasons".
 * Now there were some objections to astrology that were indeed epistemological in nature, such as Avicenna's stance (also wrongly categorized as theological in the article) that although astrological influences themselves (both positive and negative) are real, they cannot in any way be known by mankind, and so astrologers must be frauds (see Saliba 2011). I doubt however that this type of objection was widespread enough to mention in the short section that we currently have about this topic in the lead.
 * So all in all I would suggest for now Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for political, moral, religious, and doctrinal reasons. The only thing I'm not sure of is to what exactly political refers? Of course one of the most important uses of astrology historically was political, but the article does not mention much about that right now, and it's not immediately clear to me who among the detractors was politically motivated? I'm sure that there were many such detractors (who would of course have used other arguments but whose fundamental motivation was political in nature), and I'm not saying that the word should be taken out, rather that something seems to be missing in the article itself? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One more thing: wouldn't the twins objection and related criticisms qualify as empirical reasons? They're also not among the most widespread but perhaps it would be useful to add them after doctrinal. If the list is getting too long that way we could perhaps leave political out. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh great "empirical" fits the bill for me. "...who opposed it for moral, religious, doctrinal and empirical reasons..." DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will note here that I will defer to on this as I trust their opinion. Tryin to make a change :-/ 07:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think "doctrinal" works. After 's explanation, I can understand what is meant, but I would have no idea on its own. I would not naturally think to call the received teachings of Aristotle "doctrine". I think "empirical" works, but it doesn't cover the moral reasoning on display in Lear. For the lay reader, I suspect "political, religious and scientific" would make perfect sense. Srnec (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe just leave "doctrinal" out then? It's not among the most frequent types of criticisms anyway. But "scientific" really is unclear in this context and is guaranteed to make readers think of modern science, which just really doesn't cover the ground we are trying to cover here, like the twins argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physics. The twins argument is classical and often repeated, and "empirical" seems like a description for that which is both apt and (especially if wiki-linked) comprehensible to a lay reader.
 * But really, the two most frequent and notable historical objections to astrology are 1. the ethical objection that astrology denies free will and moral responsibility and 2. the religious objection that astrology attributes divine power to planetary and other celestial demons. We should actually explain this in as many words in the lead, but as long as we have just a list of types of objections, "ethical" or "moral" should definitely be in there. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Empirical" and "moral" (better than "ethical") are fine by me. I think the reader would understand the twins argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physics to be covered by "scientific" in a sentence beginning Throughout its history. But that is an empirical question we probably can't settle here, so I'm fine with avoiding that word. Unsure on "political". Srnec (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I'm following correctly we have....
 * "Throughout its history, Astrology has had detractors, competitors and doubters who opposed it for moral, religious, political, and empirical reasons. Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in learned circles, often in close relation with astronomy, meteorology, medicine, and alchemy." DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't we agree above to just keep "skeptics" rather than switch to "doubters"? Apart from that, "astrology" should be lowercase, and the "has had its detractors" of the original proposal reads better to me. But these are quibbles really; I think you can just add it to the article at this point. Thanks for all the trouble you took, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay I put it in. Thanks for all the help everyone! DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024
I would like to add the following link to the "External links" section of the Astrology page:


 * Astronehaa - Comprehensive Astrology Resources

This website offers detailed articles on various astrological concepts and practices, providing valuable resources for readers interested in astrology. Astronehaa (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for advertising. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Great article!
Just stopping by to congratulate the editors here on what is truly among the best articles on Wiki (for the subject it covers). I particularly enjoyed the section on scientific analysis/criticism: it presents different philosophical views on what does and doesn't meet the standards of science, but also shows why astrology doesn't live up to any of them. It's a great example of why "NPOV" does not mean taking a neutral position on every subject (as some editors on here seem to think); it's about accurately reflecting all major viewpoints as they are expressed in relevant, reliable, mainstream sources. Again, well done. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

" planets"?
If not planets, what are they? Athanasius V (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What is it that you are referring to that are "not planets"? Does the Planets in astrology article answer your question? CodeTalker (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)