Talk:Astrology/Archive 1

Is Astrology a Science?

 * Astrology is the science of knowing where the stars and planets are at any given time AND how the positions in relation to other stars might effect persons or events.

Astrology is not a branch of science, it is simply a technique. Whether it works or not simply helps to determine if it is *scientific* or not.
 * I have no problem with the words "technique" or "practice" in the definition of astrology, but I do balk at the traditional notion that they "affect" things on earth. Affecting implies causality in circumstances that are likely quite different.  I do completely reject the idea that astrology is practised primarily for entertainment.  A 1999 survey of psychic practitioners, which includes astrologers, showed that the most significant reasons for clients to come to psychics was a need for counselling about a person's own life.  Eclecticology


 * Astrological theory is not monolithic. Even the word "coincidence" means together in the stars. Which does not imply causality. Also look at the attitudes to freewill and pre-destination. user:T-zero


 * Coincidence does not mean "together in the stars". It's from co- (together) + incidere (to fall in, the latter from the Latin verb caedere, to fall. Nothing whatsoever to do with stars, which would have a Latin root related to sidereus''. -- Someone else 23:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also...


 * I will not delete the following paragraph but I will say before it, that the validity of astrology as a science is debatable - with good arguments for both sides. I think the following paragraph only shows one side of the debate.

Then have an attempt at putting the other side. If you think something is not right, explain why. -- sodium

I'm not nearly qualified to make the arguments for the other side - which is why I inserted that paragraph in hopes that someone else would.

I just did some quick searching and from this website I found an interesting FAQ - (and maybe this is the best angle to take here...)
 * http://www.elysian.co.uk/astro-fa.htm

Q. Is astrology an art or a science? A.   Well, I suppose the answer to that depends on personal opinion. Until astrology is once again accepted back into mainstream education, the classification of it doesn't really matter and is unlikely to be agreed upon. In some ways it is a science, in as much as it follows a clearly definable set of rules and principles, based upon mathematical and astronomical calculations. In other ways it is an arts subject, in as much as the interpretation of an astrological chart is based upon a rich and symbolic language, and the art of synthesising hundreds of variables into a coherent interpretation is a skill based more upon language and psychology than on science. I personally feel that the best compromise is to call astrology a social science, if it has to have a label at all.

But again - I'm not qualified in this realm - JvaGoddess
 * "I suppose the answer to that depends on personal opinion" no, no and no. What is science is a very large question it is a branch of philosophy called espistemology. Generation of philosopher and scientist have tried to answer to the question and ton of book have been written on the subject. There's is any epistemologic argument to qualify Astrology as a science.

Ericd 00:29 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Does Astrology Predict the Future?
It is not an attempt to predict the future.

I'm guessing this strongly depends on who you ask. Ancient peoples certainly looked to astrology as a definite prediction at least some of the time, and I would be surprised if all people who believe in the field have abandoned this. So this should probably be qualified or attributed to a particular "school". The same is true with the astrological imports attributed to certain stars and constellations, which will also vary with tradition.

Newspaper Horoscopes

 * Another interesting aspect of newspaper horoscopes is that they are usually 1 month off; the "Age of Aquarius" is here.

Unless the underlying context has meaning, this sentence has no meaning. Precessional issues are dealt with later in the article where they are relatively more meaningful. In the context of newspaper astrology where the random is as accurate as the specific, what difference does it make if they are a month off. In "scientific" analogy what good are calculations to four significant figures, when your input is only good to two significant digits? Eclecticology


 * I agree. There is a general problem with documenting pseudoscience and superstition, which is that they lack internal consistency, and there is therefore no way to present them as a definite body of knowledge. In this instance, I don't like the article's implication that astrology is good if it's done correctly, since all versions of astrology have failed empirical tests.-- User:Bcrowell

It might be nice to have a section on the Chinese Zodiak and perhaps other systems of astrology. Also, whether different cultures developed astrology independently. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to answer this myself.


 * There is an article on the chinese astrology to which I have created a link. This area could well need refactoring.  -- Alan Peakall 18:06 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and refactored it. There is now a short main article on astrology, with links to the more specific articles on the Chinese and Western systems. The ``chinese zodiac'' article was much longer and more detailed than the short section in the original astrology article, so I kept the former and eliminated the latter. The western astrology section of the original article contained a list of well known astrologers. This list seemed useless and out of place, and most of the names were broken links, except for the one on Walter Mercado. The Mercado article read like a fan page, and lacked any semblance of balance; I toned it down, and it is no longer linked to from the western astrology article. -- User:Bcrowell

I knew about Kepler and Galileo practising astrology, but I didn't know about Newton. Some source? --AN


 * I don't think that's correct about Newton. It's well documented that he spent a great deal of time on Biblical exegesis and alchemy, but I've read a couple of biographies, and I don't recall any mention of astrology. I've removed the reference to Newton. -- User:Bcrowell


 * I Googled a little, and found [this] discussion. The evidence seems to be that he did not practice astrology, and did not believe in it.

Somebody edited the sentence


 * Astronomers dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience.

to say


 * ..., but are really dealing with different issues.

I don't understand what the edited version of the sentence means, and I've put it back the way it was.

-- User:Bcrowell

What the addition meant was that astronomers and astrologers have not studied the same subject matter ever since the fork between astronomy and astrology. Being an astronomer is not in itself a sufficient criterion for passing judgment on astrology since their areas of study are so different. Eclecticology 22:43 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, I don't really see any point in getting into a debate on the merits of astrology on this page, but one of the characteristics of pseudoscience is that it immunizes itself against all criticism.
 * That's not part of the definition of pseudoscience; the characteristic that you describe is as evident in those mainstream scientists who consider any departure from orthodox scientific dogma to be pseudoscience.
 * No, a defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable, i.e., there is an empirical method that might logically allow it to be refuted. You appear to have an incorrect view of how science works. Science is inherently skeptical, and deals only with provisional truth, not absolute truth. -- user:Bcrowell
 * You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Are you saying that the theories of astrology are not falsifiable?  You can't maintain that science is inherently sceptical without being sceptical about science.  I accept that anything which I may consider to be true about astrology is only provisionally true.  Stating that astrology is pseudoscience is stating an absolute truth, and that is unscientific. Eclecticology
 * If only believers in astrology are qualified to judge the merits of astrology, then there is no way to subject it to any kind of test or criticism.
 * I've never claimed that. Astronomers and astrologers do start from a common body of data in celestial mechanics and geometry, but they diverge from there.  An astronomer who studies the composition of stars through spectroscopy is in no better position to judge alleged claims of astrological effects on human individuals than the man on the street.  These are completely different areas of study.  Nor is that astronomer any more competent to comment on modern genetics.
 * I disagree with your statement that "An astronomer who studies the composition of stars through spectroscopy is in no better position to judge alleged claims of astrological effects on human individuals than the man on the street." For instance, an astronomer realizes that the constellations are not physical groupings of stars in three dimensions, so it doesn't make sense for them to have any supernatural effect on life on our planet. The average person has never even thought about it that way. -- user:Bcrowell
 * Your argument is a non-sequitur. Knowledge of these "effects", if any, is more a function of knowing this planet than knowing others.  How can the astronomer with his eye stuck on his telescope be competent about personal effects?  He has not thought about it in this way any more than the average person.
 * Frankly, I'd like the sentence to read "Astrology is a pseudoscience," but in an attempt to keep a neutral point of view, I stated it merely as an opinion of astronomers.
 * I appreciate your restraint.
 * To me, this is like if I wrote an article on Hitler saying "Jews consider Hitler to be an evil person," and somone wanted to tack on, "but they have this opinion because of their own historical perspective."
 * That would be true but perhaps tautological. Substitute Aztecs for Jews in that sentence, and it becomes a closer analogy to what you are saying about astronomers.
 * Rather than going back and forth in an endless loop of inserting and removing the same phrase, could we hash out something here on the talk page?
 * OK
 * (a) I don't think your current version is understandable
 * To deal with that we need to deal with specifics.
 * and (b) I don't think the statement needs to be doubly weakened, when I've already made clear that it's only one point of view.
 * What is "doubly weakened"? I understand that your POV appears to be that "All astrology is pseudoscience."  If that is the case, particularly in regards to the word "all", then the logical negation of that is that "some astrology is not pseudoscience."  Supporters of astrology are not at all unanimous in their views about which parts are true.  Some have applied scientific method to their astrological studies, and many of their studies have been unconvincing.  But unconvincing or inconclusive results are not sufficient bases for calling something pseudoscience.  Scientific method involves a perpetual series of hypotheses, tests and new hypotheses that accomodate the results of the tests.  If a particular researcher in astrology follows that, he is a scentists.  The average preparer of charts for the public is no more a scientist than the chemical technician who mixes chemicals according to predetermined formulas. Eclecticology 05:53 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)
 * Re "some astrology is not pseudoscience:" A common tactic among believers in pseudoscience. Any attempt to test their claims is met with obfuscation, because the pseudoscientists refuse to be pinned down as to their beliefs. Similarly, there are many versions of creationism (young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, intelligent-design creationism), which are all mutually inconsistent. Because there is no unified theory of creationism, it's immunized against skepticism: any attempt at testing is said to be a test of the wrong version of the ``theory.'' One of my concerns about the astrology articles was that they did not do a good idea of explaining how many different versions of astrology there are. If you take a look at the creationism article, for instance, you'll see that they've done a careful job of explaining the differences among the various types of creationism.- user:Bcrowell
 * Since I'm not a believer in creationism, I'm obviously not as competent as you to discuss that subject. If what you mean by "a common tactic" is resorting to basic logic then I guess your right.  What claim were you trying to test?  If "pseudoscientists refuse to be pinned down as to their beliefs" that's very scientific of them.  Didn't you just say that all science is provisional?  In all this discussion, I haven't objected to your splitting off the Chinese astrology portion.  If you want to go ahead and describe other versions of astrology and how they differ from western astrology then just do it. Eclecticology

Well, the above discussion has turned into a debate on the merits of astrology, which I don't think is productive. But how are we doing on converging on the text of the article? The sentence in question currently reads "Scientists dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience." Your version reading "Orthodox scientists dismiss..." was inaccurate and misleading, because it implied that there was a division between orthodox scientists and nonorthodox scientists. There is no such division. This is a common tactic among believers in pseudoscience. For example, creationists like to make it sound as though evolution and the Big Bang theory were controversial, when actually they aren't controversial at all, due to the overwhelming empirical evidence in their favor. - user:Bcrowell
 * Since the focus of the debate is now on one short sentence, I suppose that's progress. My latest was just to add the word "some".  The first part of your last paragraph was credible  until "This is a common tactic..." when you began with a series of unfounded generalizations.  You previously assumed controversy between different astrologers, and that was unfounded. Eclecticology
 * I'm removing "some," and changing the sentence so it refers, as it originally did, to astronomers, rather than scientists in general. The point of the sentence is to help readers understand the distinction between astronomy and astrology, so it should refer to astronomers. Also, the word "some" is inaccurate and misleading. It suggests there is a controversy among scientists about the merits of astrology, when in fact there is none.

-

From the article:
 * (Galileo, for instance, used telescopic observations to show that astronomical bodies such as the sun and moon had markings on them, rather than being perfect, featureless spheres as maintained by Aristotle.) 

Surely people could see the markings on the Moon with the naked eye, well before Galileo? -- Anon.


 * Aristotle said that they were phenomena in the earth's atmosphere, not actual imperfections of the moon. --User:Bcrowell
 * The problem with the statement about markings is not because it's wrong. It's only irrelevant to the distinction between astrology and astronomy. Eclecticology 03:03 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)

I accepted the challenge to find "one" astronomer who "believed" in astrology, and after a quick serch found the following at http://astrology.about.com/library/weekly/aa102599.htm
 * "In recent years... many otherwise reasonable, rational people from all walks of life have (so to speak) "come out of their metaphysical closets" in defense of astrology.


 * By way of a few examples from the scientific community... the visionary English astronomer Percy Seymour "threw his hat into the ring" by publishing Astrology: The Evidence of Science, appearing in April 1989. In his groundbreaking book ? Dr Seymour, a chartered member of the Institute of Physics and Fellow member of the Royal Astronomical Society, explained his revolutionary theories of celestial harmonics in regard to why astrology may work in the first place.


 * In 1995, environmental scientist (originally trained in mathematical physics), Dr William Keepin, published the article "Astrology and the New Physics: Integrating Sacred and Secular Sciences", in the astrology magazine The Mountain Astrologer, (August/September, 1995),


 * Then there's Victor Mansfield, astrophysicist and author of Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making in 1995. In 1997, when Dr Mansfield was a featured speaker at a major astrology conference (the Cycles and Symbols Conference San Francisco 1997), he caused quite a stir.


 * While one needn't be a rocket scientist to believe astrology works, it apparently doesn't hurt, either."

Eclecticology

Isn't it more productive to find statistians who studied the subject? several studies have been done in england germany and france. C.G. jung included a study on married couples from the existing data of his practice in his work Synchronicity. Two16
 * Descriptions of some of the key studies with links and references would certainly be welcome; I look forward to your additions. IIRC Jung's studies were not statistically significant.  He did perceive certain interesting tendencies in his data, and likely would have been satisfied if that data had served as a stepping stone to more rigorous studies. Eclecticology 06:52 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

--- No real need. There seems to be a clear arguement that classes astrology with medicine as an art. Both are always dealing with unique instances and both have their respective placebo effect. Adding the phrase "Tremendous opposition to astrology exists within the scientific community." and removing the not so subtle propaganda to protect the innumerate would serve the interest of npov. All the anti on this topic not help those who magiclly wish. Mentioning protoscience with the same link to the psuedoscience article as pseudoscience would improve npov because that article is well balanced. 64.229.240.15 02:58 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

______________________________


 * Just in case anyone thought science wasn't human: Csicop


 * The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
 * or CSICOP is an organization formed ostensibly to encourage open minded, : critical investigation of paranormal and :pseudoscience claims from a responsible, scientific point of view.


 * As the publishers of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, the committee : disseminates information about results of such inquiries to the scientific
 * community and the public.


 * CSICOP's history has not been without scandal. In one of its earliest ventures, : the failure of CSICOP leadership to critique the 'Mars Effect' claim of Michel : and Francoise Gauquelin in an honest and scientific manner resulted ultimately : in the resignation of at least one of CSICOP's founding members in disgust. (see : link below).


 * ==External Links==
 * *CSICOP homepage
 * *"CSICOP and the : Skeptics: An Overview"
 * *The True Disbelievers by
 * Richard Kamann and Marcello Truzzi is a detailed account of internal events at
 * CSICOP over the course of the Gauquelin 'Mars Effect' fiasco.


 * Most astrologers consider astronomy a lobotomized approach to the heavens, desribing their physicality, but totally stopping at meaning and relevance for man, the most important aspect of the study.

This bit of provocative nonsense is as idiotic as some of the things that I hear from the pro-science crowd abot astrology. The fact is that the two groups study different things, and that's perfectly fine. Who says that "relevance for man" needs to be studied by astronomers? Eclecticology 02:32 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Some refactoring needs to be done to make this npov in light of Csicop:

Richard Kamann and Marcello Truzzi is a detailed account of internal events at CSICOP over the course of the Gauquelin 'Mars Effect' fiasco.
 * The True Disbelievers by

I am going to put this link at the bottom of the page.

--

I think a bit about the scientific POV of why astrology exists would be good, but I'm not sure how to put it neutrally. Back before humanity had collected much scientific knowledge, the seasons, the migration of birds and hibernation of animals, births and deaths of most organisms, tides, weather patterns, etc. worked in sync with the changing of the stars throughout the year. We now know that there is no causal effect there, but ancient man did not. If the stars could effect all those things, it's not a big stretch to think it could effect a person's personality, future, etc. If someone can think of where and how to add this, it would be most appreciated.


 * What you raise is an historical issue more than a scientific one. What happened historically, did so independently of any underlying validity or error on the part of astrological concepts.  Nobody disputes that at one time in history the two practices of astrology and astronomy were virtually the same thing.


 * When you suggest that astrology theorizes a causal relationship between planetary positions and human personality, you have put it in a box that is not of its own making. Many astrologers, in fact, see that kind of relationship as acausal.  It seems to me much of the foundations of modern science have depended on accepting the doctrine of causality that it inherited from the mediaeval church.  &#9774; Eclecticology 01:58 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

--

Very few scientists are actually qualified to dismiss astrology as a pseudoscience, having never truly studied it themselves. In fact, scientists have resorted to the most base forms of pseudoscience themselves when faced with credible evidence of some of the basic tenets of astrology, as evidenced by the manner Michel Gauquelin's work was received. The "Mars Effect" is only the most well known of his experiments. Nearly all of his studies proved negative. However, his studies on astrology's relation to geneology had a positive result. Parents and children were found to have astrologically related charts at a much higher degree than chance would allow.

His methods were very scientific, so many arguments against him resort to ad-hominem attacks, accusing him of bias and ignoring the fact that most of his life's work resulted in scientific evidence against astrology, not for it. His "Mars Effect" experiment has been replicated, with varied results. His geneological experiment was never repeated, as far as I know. The main reason for this is the difficulty in repeating the data gathering technique. For a repetition of the experiment to be valid, it must contain the birth data of people for whom the exact time of birth is recorded (often it is recorded as a round number rather than the exact time), and who had natural births (i.e., not induced). This is a difficult task indeed and one which Gauquelin devoted much of his life to.

The smug tone of the article and the feedback here I find personally insulting, as this is a subject which I am very knowledgeable about, and whose opponents display a willful ignorance of, to the point of saying that they don't even need to study it in order to prove it false. However, I firmly believe the evidence will eventually win out once the old guard orthodoxy dies out, as happens in so many areas of scientific controversy.

For example, it is a proven fact that oysters open an close their shells in synchronicity with the high and low tide. It was thought that the water level, current strength, etcetera caused this phenomenon. This has been scientifically shown not to be the case. When isolated and kept at constant temperature and light levels, oysters open and close their shells en masse, based on the lunar cycle. http://www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/EL/EL3/Biological.html Further experiments proved that the shades of crab shells are affected by the position of the moon at their birth.

Is this proof of "astrology"? Emphatically no! However, it is proof of the central tenet of astrology, that nearby celestial bodies influence physical characteristics and actions of living beings. The problem is that "astrology", in its current form, is a VERY general term and has not been formed from scientific rigor, but from a gradual "folk empiricization", to coin a phrase. When scientists argue against it, they can easily point to any number of outrageous beliefs held by crackpots the world over, and say "See, they're wrong, so astrology is wrong". Rarely do you have any sort of real effort to study the **phenomenon** rather than the **practice**. In many cases the practice can be easily disproven by an eleven year old. A good example is the newspaper horoscope, which apparently seeks to divide the entire world into twelve categories and predict what will happen to them today.

It is obvious to a moron-level intelligence that there are more than twelve categories of people and no "serious" astrologer (if such exist) would make such claims as the newspaper horoscopes do every day. However, very few "orthodox" scientists have had the inclination, bravery, funding, or prescience to study the phenomenon rather than the practice.

Eventually, there will be formed a "scientific astrology", if you will, but it will not be called astrology. It will probably be called something like Astronomical Biorhythmic Synchronicity.

I am altering the article slightly. I'm sure someone will undo what I have done, but I believe most will find my change to be equitable to both sides of the debate. Cardsharque


 * I found the article to say that the practice of astrology IS a pseudoscience. I editted it to say it is considered so by a majority of scientists. In the light of Gauquelin's work that is more correct. Yngwin 17:40 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * While I agree that Gauquelin's work validates the underlying principles of astrology, it in no way validates the practice, which is why I left that sentence alone. Even though I am a believer, astrology IS a pseudoscience by the strict definition of the term. The tenets of astrology as it is practiced today have not been validated by the scientific method, even when Gauquelin's work is taken into account. Cardsharque


 * The word Pseudoscience does not have a strict definition; it is a POV word (pejorative). Thus, in Wikipedia it should be used only in statements of opinion, never in statements of fact. Mkweise 21:50 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * We have a very good definition of pseudoscience here. Mintguy 21:54 21 May 2003 (UTC)~


 * That's right, and the 3rd paragraph does a great job of explaining why the word is to be avoided in encyclopedic writing:
 * The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and real science are often unclear. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Oftentimes the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.
 * Mkweise 02:21 22 May 2003 (UTC)

It appears that Isaac Newton's alleged support for Astrology is mere urban legend. - http://phoenix.us.mensa.org/maam/m2002/mike0902.htm


 * Although the word "support" may be inappropriate to describe Newton's relation with astrology, there is nothing in that article that is convincing about Newton's views on the subject. Qualifying these as urban legend is as much a leap to faith as to say that Newton wholeheartedly accepted all the favorable statements that had been made about astrology before him.  The evidence about Newton's views strikes me as inconclusive.  His work on celestial mechanics contributed to the eventual separation of astronomy and astrology.  At the same time, he wrote extensively about alchemy, sometimes with astrological themes.  I suspect that it may be closer to the truth to say that Newton the alchemist's relationship with astrology may have been as reliable as today's chemist is about astronomy.


 * You clearly didn't read the article properly. i.e. "Newton scholar and English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton's hand." and "Newton confided to Conduitt that his interest in science had first been roused in the summer of 1663, when, as a young student at Cambridge, he purchased a book on astrology at the midsummer fair at Stourbridge ... 'soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology' ". Mintguy 07:14 22 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Umm, is Judicial astrology a method of determining the guilt or innocence of accused criminals by looking at the stars, or did judicial have another meaning in the 17th century? Mkweise 17:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)


 * A quick google tell me than 'judicial' astrology deals with individual predictions as opposed to a 'natural', or philosophical astrology which deals with the heaven's influence on the world. Mintguy 18:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I have made modifications to this page because, as an astologer, I found it to be inaccurate in presenting what astrologers generally believe and practice. The discussion on the subject of astrology must, I feel, be representative of the opinions of both those who consider it useful and accurate and those who disagree. I have removed the description of astrology as a system of divination, because most leading astrologers would strongly disagree with that characterization. Also, western astrology uses the tropical zodiac, not tropical time (I've never heard that term before, and I see there is no definition of it either). If someone wishes to discuss the modifications, or disagree with them, I'm quite open to discussion of them. I've attempted to maintain a neutral tone in the article.

Etoma

Reverted 3 recent changes.
 * 1) re Newton: the statement states that he was interested, not that he believed.
 * 2) Astrology as divination represents a narrow interpretation of the term; defining the term pseudo-astrology in relation to tabloid astrology is unhelpful; tabloid astrology is adequately criticized elsewhere.
 * 3) The reference to logical fallacies is totally irrelevent in the absence of evidence about which astrologers are making such claims. "Correlation is causality" is completely meaningless in circumstances where astrologers view these correlations as acausal. &#9774; Eclecticology 00:35, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)


 * I never stated that astrologers use these logical fallacies to justify their claims, simply that these fallacies are used by "contemporary believers" (i.e. those sorts of people that read horoscopes in the tabloids, and then say stuff like "there must be some truth in it because people have been doing it for hundreds of years" -- which is the appeal to tradition). Maybe there is some better term than "contemporary believers", but it is relevant to mention logical fallacies here since they are very frequently used to justify the unsubstantiated claims of astrology. LordK 10:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Appearance in the tabloid press is enough to taint the credibility of anything without regard whatsoever to its validity in other fora. Those astrology columns are right up there with claims about Arnold Schwarzenegger being pregnant.  Attacking astrology based on the tabloid press is a straw man argument.  Saying that there must be some truth in something is far removed from specifying what that truth is and using that as a basis for a science.  Jumping to conclusions is more of a problem.  If you are going to make references to logical fallacies (and they do abound in this subject area) the application needs to be more focused.  Who precisely is using these fallacies.  It serves no purpose to attribute these fallacies to a part of the astrological community that astrologers themselves don't respect. &#9774; Eclecticology 22:58, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)

Re: Newton. The statement "There is some evidence in the works of Isaac Newton that he was interested in astrology" - does not equate with - "Newton scholar and English historian of science Derek Thomas Whiteside has stated that he never found any reference to astrology among the 50 million words which have been preserved from Newton's hand." The latter indicates that there is no evidence whatsoever. Mintguy 08:11, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * By acknowledging in the article that Newton had a passing interest evidenced by his book purchases, and that that interest was subservient to other interests (notably alchemy) adequately deals with Newton's role. A passing interest is substantially less than a belief.  It shows that the matter has been considered.  Not mentioning Newton at all guarantees that the issue will come up again and again, sometimes with far more outrageous positions. &#9774; Eclecticology 22:58, 2003 Aug 12 (UTC)

From the same reference as given above: Out of a total of some 1752 books found in his collection upon his death, Only 4 had any mention of astrology. i.e. 0.22% of his collection. These four books were..
 * Tractatus utilis ante LX annos conscriptus, cui titulum fecit, Speculum astrologorum ... by Johann Essler from Mainz (Basel, 1596; first published in 1508); bound in one volume with Theoricæ novæ planetarum by George Peurbach. Newton's personal copy, which is presently kept at the Trinity College Library at Cambridge, displays no dog-ears, marginal notes, or other evident signs of regular use.


 * Palmistry, the secrets thereof disclosed; or, a familiar, easy and new method, whereby to judge of the most general accidents of mans life from the lines of the hand, withal its dimentions and significations. As also that most useful piece of astrology (long since promised) concerning elections for every particular occasion, now plainly manifested from rational principles of art, not published till now, by Richard Saunders (1613-1675), (G. Sawbridge, London, 1663).


 * Rider's British Merlin and almanmanc by Chardanus Rider (London, c. 1690)., [S]Chardanus Rider, is an anagram of Richard Saunders

This does not even suggest a passing interest in the subject. I suspect you would find more books on astrology in the collections of Einstein or Richard Dawkins. It is simply a fallacy to include any reference to Newton whatsoever, which might suggest that he took any kind of interest in the subject. A reference to Newton in the text is a possible stub, which allows someone to falsely elaborate on his interest. To simply expunge the reference altogether and maintain it as expunged is the correct way to deal with those who wish to make a claim for Newton as an astrologer. Mintguy 11:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Tetractys Anti-Astrologica; or, the four chapters in the explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, which contain a brief but solid confutation of Judiciary Astrology (London, 1681). This is an excerpt from a work published by Henry More (1614-1687) in 1660 debunking astrology. Again, Newton?s personal copy, which was presented to him by the author and is now kept in the Beinecke Library of Rare Books at the Yale University (New Haven), shows no signs of regular use.

Your list is at least evidence of a passing interest, and the lack of usage of the fourth item could even be taken to mean that he had no real interest in debunking astrology either. That Einstein may have had such books on his shelf attests to his open-mindedness, and I would expect such an infamous debunker as Dawkins to have at least something on his shelf before he could possibly say anything sensible about astrology. I would at least hope that you had some astrological works on your shelf before making your comments.

I am puzzled by the way you use the word "fallacy" which, as I understand it refers to misunderstanding or a lack of reason. There is nothing fallacious about the reasoning that because he had these books on his shelf, he must have been at least interested enough to acquire them.

It is with your final point that I take greatest objection. It's what censorship is all about. It deletes a fact out of the fear of what hypothetical others might do. If you are going to do that why not insert a sentence like, "References to Isaac Newton have been expunged from this article because we don't trust Wikipedians to be fair-minded on this subject."? If the claim that Newton was an astrologer is to have any validity the onus is upon those people making that claim to prove it. Outrageous extrapolations are more easily resisted from the position of a simple truth, than from one of no truth at all. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:41, 2003 Aug 13 (UTC)

From dictionary.com

fallacy
 * 1) A false notion.
 * 2) A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
 * 3) Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
 * 4) The quality of being deceptive

Of the four books
 * Rider's British Merlin was an almanac containing information about phases of the moon etc. It also contains astrological information. See for a brief description of a copy for sale. It also appears George Washington also owned a copy of this book. Should the article say that Washington took a passing interest is astrology as well?
 * Tetractys Anti-Astrologica was presented to Newton by the author. Newton himself didn't purchase it.
 * Palmistry, the secrets thereof disclosed .. by Saunders, is predominantly about palmistry and not astrology. See.. for a description of this book.
 * The final book by Johann Essler is bound together with Theoricæ novæ planetarum by George Peurbach, the latter book is about astronomy. Who is to say whether Newton purchased it because he took a passing interest in the former or the latter.

Quite simply, there is not a shred of evidence that Newton took even a passing interest in Astrology. The only book in his possession that deals exclusively with astrology was presented to him by the author as a gift and it?s contents were anti-astrological. It is analogous to say that because I possess a daily newspaper that contains horoscopes, a cookbook by Nancy Reagan and a book by James Randi that was a present from my brother, I have a passing interest astrology.

To say Newton took a passing interest in Astronomy based on the above "evidence" is fallacious. Mintguy 21:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted the above a week ago. So as there hasn't been any response, I'm removing the Newton reference again. Mintguy 15:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It seems that I am entering in the middle of an edit war, anyway

"To simply expunge the reference altogether and maintain it as expunged is the correct way to deal with those who wish to make a claim for Isaac Newton as an astrologer."

I don't really understand how a sentence like that can find its place in the article. It seems an error, like an edit intended for the Talk page :-) Maybe some middle ground can be found, like:

"Isaac Newton is often cited as having an interest on astrology, but no evidence can be found about this."

At18 12:40, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why perpetuate such a myth. Shall we put the following Satanism. "It has been suggested that Isaac Newton was a satanist who ate babies, drank the blood of virgins, and danced round maypoles naked, but no evidence has been found of this" ? Mintguy 12:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In fact, I removed the sentence. But if 10,000 people continue to refer to Netwon as an astrologer, a disclaimer is in order. Let's see if the Netwon reference comes back. At18 13:02, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I've made the change based on your middle ground proposal. Please note that my position has consistently been that Newton had an interest in astrology, and not that he was an astrologer.  I know nothing about Mintguy's suggestion that Newton was a Satanist, etc.  If he wants to make that claim it's up to him to provide the evidence.  &#9774; Eclecticology 18:59, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention Newton or George Washington or Richard Dawkins in this article, but if you insist that his name appear in this article then we must at least clearly state (as has been demonstrated above) that there is not a shred of evidence to support any supposition that he took even the smallest interest in the subject. Hence -
 * Isaac Newton is sometimes cited as having an interest on astrology, but the proposed evidence does not stand up to close examination. There is not a single word recorded in Newton's hand that mentions astrology and he did not posses a single book devoted to it's study.


 * Mintguy 20:30, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * We're close. Given that 4 books have been mentioned it seems to me that something like "...and the few books in his possession were held incidentally to other interest." would be more accurate. &#9774; Eclecticology 22:01, 2003 Aug 21 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I used it's instead of its anyway, so it needs an edit, though perhaps I might suggest:


 * "There is not a single word recorded in Newton's hand that mentions the subject and the handful of books in his possession that contained references to astrology were primarily concerned with other subjects" .
 * Your verbiage is very confrontational, and sounds like the result of a flame war. When I read it, it sounds like "Astrologers make this outrageous claim but there is NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR IT". I am changing the text to be less confrontational, yet express the same fact. -Anon IP
 * It was an agreed form of words that has stood in this article for quite some time, albeit with a grammatical error. Well done for spotting the incorrect preposition which has been there for nearly a year. But what has alchemy to do with it? Newton was a polymath. Do we say "Famed theologian, mathematician, physicist, alchemist, philosopher, astronomer, politician, chaplain to Charles II, Master of the Royal mint etc.. Mintguy (T) 16:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Alchemy at the time tended to link the qualities of various substances to the effects and characteristics of the planets.  Eclecticology 08:59, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * but non of the four books mentioned is about alchemy so the sentence "..incidental to other subjects, notably alchemy." is just plain wrong. Mintguy (T) 10:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I can see this being embellished by someone with other ideas though. Mintguy 22:17, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I've copied the above sentence to the article with my only change being a comma after "subject" to avoid the reading "mentions ... the handful of books". Anything further from me would be quibbling.  This is an article that I watch regularly for NPOV, and though it seems that I more often deal with hostility to the subject from the "pro-science" POV, I just as willingly oppose stupidities from some supporters of astrology. &#9774; Eclecticology 01:23, 2003 Aug 22 (UTC)

Slartibartfast The article's looking good... I just wanted to point out, though, regarding this:


 * "User:Lumos3> (Deleted claim that Astology can be considered a Social science. Have never seen this supported by any social scientists.)"

It wasn't a claim, it was a hypothetical statement - that if astrology were a legitimate science at all, it would (or may, perhaps I should have said) qualify as a social science. I didn't put it back, but, I reworded the sentence after that whose original meaning was distorted by the removal of that sentence.

OK, a long debate. My POV - if astrology is a science, then astrologers should be attempting to provide a scientific explanation for astrology. Are any of them doing this?

Exile

I'm adding an NPOV marker to this article. The article has a long history of edit wars. Many of these have centered around the question of astrology's relationship to science. I edited it a little today, but the article as it stands is still full of misleading attempts to make it sound is if there was scientific evidence for astrology. This is equivalent to writing an article on Christianity and trying to give arguments to support Christianity based on science. The article should treat astrology as what it actually is: a prescientific belief system.
 * There is very little in the article that bluntly calls astrology a science. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are some biological phenomena that co-ordinate with celestial movements (e.g. circadian rhythms, see Chronobiology). This misleading topic sentence led into a paragraph that attempted to imply mysterious correlations between heavens and earth that could not be explained by science. I've edited the paragraph a little to try to restore NPOV, but the whole thing is bogus.
 * The simple quoted statement of co-ordination does not by itself imply anything about astrology or science. How can the inability of science to explain something be used as an argument against astrology. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrological concepts are pervasive in many societies, and endure despite strong efforts by scientists to discredit them. The tone of this sentence is biased. It makes it sound as if the brave tradition of astrology has been struggling valiantly against the attempts of narrowminded scientists to censor it, but because its heart is pure, it has survived. Again, there is an attempt to create confusion in the mind of the reader as to the true relationship between astrology and science. If astrology allows itself to be judged by the scientific method, it is discredited by the evidence. Judged on those terms, scientists have not just made "efforts" to discredit astrology, they have thoroughly disproved it. The article should present astrology as a belief system standing outside of science, in which case the second half of this sentence is irrelevant.
 * How can it be biased; many scientists do work hard at trying to discredit astrology. Your sarcasm about brave and valiant struggles is certainly not intended to clarify the issue. Most of what you say is utter bullshit, and only proves that you don't know what your talking about.  You've used your presumption that astrologers call themselves scienctists for a straw man argument to justify a diatribe against astrology.  Some parts of astrology will allow themselves to be judged by the scientific method, but to that extent those who seek a scientific explanation would prefer to do so in an atmosphere where the opponents are able to restrain their natural tendency for irrelevant generalizations.  That scientists have made strong efforts to discredit astrology is a fact whether or not your wild claim of victory is justified.  I have no problem in accepting astrology as a belief system that is mostly outside of science, but scientists do persist in their attempts to discredit, but rather than evoking visions of valiant defenders they just make themselves look silly.Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind This paragraph is another misleading attempt to make it sound as if astrology had some scientific value.
 * There's not a single reference to science in that short paragraph. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The personality descriptions made in astrological forecasts can be viewed as a method of describing matters of the mind and personality in western culture. The earth can be viewed as flat, or human sacrifice can be viewed as a noble expression of religious feeling. Astrology is not a psychological theory for classifying personalities; to claim that it is, is to ignore the relationship astrology claims between the heavens and human affairs.
 * More sarcasm! Am I safe to argue with someone who believes in a flat earth and human sacrifice?  There is nothing in the paragraph about "classifying personalities", even if that sort of practice is certainly a part of astrology's history despite your claim to the contrary. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scientists claim that the effect of tidal forces is far too weak over a small area (such as the human body) to have any influence on a biological organism. Scientists don't just claim it, they know it.
 * Such a categorical claim is very unscientific. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrologers counter that according to the scientific method, the burden is not on the experimenter to provide a mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies I added a clause at the end that scientists do not believe in the existence of any such correlations, or "anomalies," but this is just another example of the article's misleading attempts to impute scientific value to astrology.
 * I honestly don't know what that contributor was trying to say with "mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies". I've deleted it.  You seem to understand it better than I do, so feel free to add it back. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung, have acknowledged its descriptive powers of the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims. Another misleading attempt to connect astrology to science. Jung and Freud did not use the scientific method, and are both completely outside the mainstream of modern scientific thought about psychology. The relationship of their theories to the science of psychology is similar to the relationship of astrology to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry. User:Bcrowell
 * Trying to get a lot of mileage out of that short paragraph? I still don't see a reference to science in the paragraph.  Nor is there any mention of Freud.  Your broad generalized statements about Jung are certainly off topic. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eclecticology, please don't delete the NPOV marker from the story. I've put it back in. bcrowell

Requested mediation --Bcrowell 15:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ive made some comments on Requests for mediation. Please get to them when you can. Im offering to mediate; please say yes or no to my offer on the RFM page. -SV

Attribution is not innuendo
Followers of astrology believe it is a system of understanding. Others claim it understands nothing. It is only appropriate to attribute the claim that it is a system of understanding to those who make it. Wikipedia should not claim that it is a system of understanding, it should tell us who claims this. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Bcrowell 23:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rewriting
Eclecticology, do you want to go ahead and write the "pro" section first, and then I'll write the "con"?
 * I was beginning to think that I probably should. I'll work on it in the next few days.  It would be hard for you to be "con"trary to something that isn't yet there.  Any comment on the intro paragraph that I put there?  I know that you agree with what User:Nunh-huh is trying to say.  Is there any way to get him to cool his heels while we're sorting this out?  These are the kind of issues that we are trying to deal with comprehensively so that readers won't need to deal with incessant awkward wording. Eclecticology 20:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You might try asking him. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh and Eclecticology -- I actually hadn't been looking carefully at all the work Nunh-huh has been doing. The intro paragraph looks fine to me. I don't see any harm in having participation from more people; I actually think it could work nicely because it would make it clear that this is a contest of ideas, and not a contest of individuals, and all we're trying to do is inform the reader and let the reader come to conclusions. The nice thing, IMO, about having separate pro and con paragraphs is that then if someone feels strongly one way or the other, that person can try to strengthen the paragraph s/he agrees with, rather than getting in an edit war trying to weaken the stuff s/he disagrees with. Eclecticology, please go ahead and write the con paragraph, and Nunh-huh, please don't feel rebuffed -- I think you just might not have realized where Eclecticology was coming from, because we just finished (sort of) a round of mediation on this article. I'm taking the kids to visit Grandma tomorrow, and probably won't be doing any edits until the middle of next week, but don't wait for me to get going. --Bcrowell 03:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've written a paragraph for the case against astrology. Can the table of contents be moved somewhere else? I don't know what the standard formatting is supposed to be, but the ToC is currently breaking up the flow of this part of the article. Once the 'pro-' paragraph is written, I think we can go ahead and start editing the pro/con stuff out of the rest of the article, so that the rest of it is more factually oriented. --Bcrowell 14:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discourse
Hi Casanova -- Until recently, I hadn't noticed the end note you wrote, which was later moved and made a subsection after the cases for and against. It was actually an argument in favor of astrology, and it was based on the premise that astrology actually works, but that scientists simply can't explain its success. Since scientists don't agree that astrology works, it's misleading to place this argument in its own subsection, as if it was an evenhanded attempt to put the arguments for and against in perspective. If you want this argument in the article, could you please incorporate it into the "case for" subsection? The case-for/case-against setup was arrived at via painstaking negotiation and mediation; the reason for doing it that way was to keep all the opinionated stuff in one place, so that most of the article could be purely factual. --Bcrowell 02:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I do like the new editing done to this page as of Sep 13th 2004. I am still at odds with the cases for and against though. Casanova

I would much rather read this article without the cases for and against astrology, however I left them alone. I believe they are both non contributing articles. No offense to whoever wrote them. I changed the first paragraph quite a bit.Casanova 03:47, 12 Sep 2004


 * The cases for and against rose out of the disputed NPOV of the article. We went to mediation about it, and this was the solution we came up with. It actually seems to have worked very well, because the partisans on both sides are no longer getting in revert wars about editing each other's sentences.--Bcrowell 01:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm adding an NPOV marker to this article. The article has a long history of edit wars. Many of these have centered around the question of astrology's relationship to science. I edited it a little today, but the article as it stands is still full of misleading attempts to make it sound as if there was scientific evidence for astrology. This is equivalent to writing an article on Christianity and trying to give arguments to support Christianity based on science. The article should treat astrology as what it actually is: a prescientific belief system.
 * There is very little in the article that bluntly calls astrology a science. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are some biological phenomena that co-ordinate with celestial movements (e.g. circadian rhythms, see Chronobiology).

This misleading topic sentence led into a paragraph that attempted to imply mysterious correlations between heavens and earth that could not be explained by science. I've edited the paragraph a little to try to restore NPOV, but the whole thing is bogus.
 * The simple quoted statement of co-ordination does not by itself imply anything about astrology or science. How can the inability of science to explain something be used as an argument against astrology. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrological concepts are pervasive in many societies, and endure despite strong efforts by scientists to discredit them.

The tone of this sentence is biased. It makes it sound as if the brave tradition of astrology has been struggling valiantly against the attempts of narrowminded scientists to censor it, but because its heart is pure, it has survived. Again, there is an attempt to create confusion in the mind of the reader as to the true relationship between astrology and science. If astrology allows itself to be judged by the scientific method, it is discredited by the evidence. Judged on those terms, scientists have not just made "efforts" to discredit astrology, they have thoroughly disproved it. The article should present astrology as a belief system standing outside of science, in which case the second half of this sentence is irrelevant.
 * How can it be biased; many scientists do work hard at trying to discredit astrology. Your sarcasm about brave and valiant struggles is certainly not intended to clarify the issue. Most of what you say is utter bullshit, and only proves that you don't know what your talking about.  You've used your presumption that astrologers call themselves scienctists for a straw man argument to justify a diatribe against astrology.  Some parts of astrology will allow themselves to be judged by the scientific method, but to that extent those who seek a scientific explanation would prefer to do so in an atmosphere where the opponents are able to restrain their natural tendency for irrelevant generalizations.  That scientists have made strong efforts to discredit astrology is a fact whether or not your wild claim of victory is justified.  I have no problem in accepting astrology as a belief system that is mostly outside of science, but scientists do persist in their attempts to discredit, but rather than evoking visions of valiant defenders they just make themselves look silly.Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind

This paragraph is another misleading attempt to make it sound as if astrology had some scientific value.


 * There's not a single reference to science in that short paragraph. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The personality descriptions made in astrological forecasts can be viewed as a method of describing matters of the mind and personality in western culture.

The earth can be viewed as flat, or human sacrifice can be viewed as a noble expression of religious feeling. Astrology is not a psychological theory for classifying personalities; to claim that it is, is to ignore the relationship astrology claims between the heavens and human affairs.


 * More sarcasm! Am I safe to argue with someone who believes in a flat earth and human sacrifice?  There is nothing in the paragraph about "classifying personalities", even if that sort of practice is certainly a part of astrology's history despite your claim to the contrary. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scientists claim that the effect of tidal forces is far too weak over a small area (such as the human body) to have any influence on a biological organism.

Scientists don't just claim it, they know it.


 * Such a categorical claim is very unscientific. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Astrologers counter that according to the scientific method, the burden is not on the experimenter to provide a mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies

I added a clause at the end that scientists do not believe in the existence of any such correlations, or "anomalies," but this is just another example of the article's misleading attempts to impute scientific value to astrology.


 * I honestly don't know what that contributor was trying to say with "mechanism for correlated statistical anomalies". I've deleted it.  You seem to understand it better than I do, so feel free to add it back. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung, have acknowledged its descriptive powers of the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims.

Another misleading attempt to connect astrology to science. Jung and Freud did not use the scientific method, and are both completely outside the mainstream of modern scientific thought about psychology. The relationship of their theories to the science of psychology is similar to the relationship of astrology to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry. User:Bcrowell
 * Trying to get a lot of mileage out of that short paragraph? I still don't see a reference to science in the paragraph.  Nor is there any mention of Freud.  Your broad generalized statements about Jung are certainly off topic. Eclecticology 06:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eclecticology, please don't delete the NPOV marker from the story. I've put it back in. bcrowell

Requested mediation --Bcrowell 15:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ive made some comments on Requests for mediation. Please get to them when you can. Im offering to mediate; please say yes or no to my offer on the RFM page. -SV

Attribution is not innuendo
Followers of astrology believe it is a system of understanding. Others claim it understands nothing. It is only appropriate to attribute the claim that it is a system of understanding to those who make it. Wikipedia should not claim that it is a system of understanding, it should tell us who claims this. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Bcrowell 23:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rewriting
Eclecticology, do you want to go ahead and write the "pro" section first, and then I'll write the "con"?
 * I was beginning to think that I probably should. I'll work on it in the next few days.  It would be hard for you to be "con"trary to something that isn't yet there.  Any comment on the intro paragraph that I put there?  I know that you agree with what User:Nunh-huh is trying to say.  Is there any way to get him to cool his heels while we're sorting this out?  These are the kind of issues that we are trying to deal with comprehensively so that readers won't need to deal with incessant awkward wording. Eclecticology 20:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You might try asking him. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh and Eclecticology -- I actually hadn't been looking carefully at all the work Nunh-huh has been doing. The intro paragraph looks fine to me. I don't see any harm in having participation from more people; I actually think it could work nicely because it would make it clear that this is a contest of ideas, and not a contest of individuals, and all we're trying to do is inform the reader and let the reader come to conclusions. The nice thing, IMO, about having separate pro and con paragraphs is that then if someone feels strongly one way or the other, that person can try to strengthen the paragraph s/he agrees with, rather than getting in an edit war trying to weaken the stuff s/he disagrees with. Eclecticology, please go ahead and write the con paragraph, and Nunh-huh, please don't feel rebuffed -- I think you just might not have realized where Eclecticology was coming from, because we just finished (sort of) a round of mediation on this article. I'm taking the kids to visit Grandma tomorrow, and probably won't be doing any edits until the middle of next week, but don't wait for me to get going. --Bcrowell 03:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've written a paragraph for the case against astrology. Can the table of contents be moved somewhere else? I don't know what the standard formatting is supposed to be, but the ToC is currently breaking up the flow of this part of the article. Once the 'pro-' paragraph is written, I think we can go ahead and start editing the pro/con stuff out of the rest of the article, so that the rest of it is more factually oriented. --Bcrowell 14:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a starter for the "Case for.." section as I was getting uncomfortable with it being blank. I think a section on the "History of astrology" would be very useful and non controversial addition as it could draw on known historical sources. Lumos3 12:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

 * Those of us whom manage the Galileo Galilei entry have not decided whether Galileo should be considered an astrologer in addition to an astronomer. I kindly ask that references to Galileo Galilei as an astrologer be temporarily removed from this entry until we've reached a consensus by popular vote. Thank you. Adraeus 19:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notable astrologers
Whoever is adding to the list of notable astrologers is also adding astrologer to their individual articles. Can anyone check the accuracy of this? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ur&#949; 05:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The accuracy of all of these notable astrologers is completely verified--I own mutiple volumes on the history of astrology, so I just thumbed through my books and found if any of the astrologers mentioned in those texts are also on Wikipedia by a simple search--the hits were usually from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica--consequently, many are listed as astronomers in the original article, and not astrologers, but as was true until about 1750, you could use the word astronomer/astrologer interchangeably, i.e. astronomy and astrology were the same thing until about 250 years ago when the disciplines for the most part were completely split apart, though it was a very gradual process beginning about 1500 or so--If you have your doubts you can always open each article, copy and paste the individual's name into a Google search along with the word "astrology" and you should get a few hits -- certainly more hits for the better known astrologers more so than others, because there are very many from antiquity (WAAAAAAY back--astrology is very ancient) that I was able to find on here, so they are rather obscure, but important astrologers nonetheless and should be listed here.
 * Do we need to list every individual who has had any interest in astrology in their lifetime? No.  We'd end up with a list of everyone in Hollywood. -  T&#949;x  &#964;


 * Ninety percent of those listed in the Notable Astrologer column did not just "have an interest in astrology in their lifetime." Far from it -- these were brilliant, practicing, and very serious astrologers who contributed in multiple ways to the discipline (and many other disciplines as well I might add) and are important to the ancient and illustrious history of astrology on this planet.  Notice that there are many Arabs thinkers listed as they were the ones that protected and preserved astrology during the Dark Ages when the spread of knowledge in the West was reduced to almost nil.  Anyhow, with the exception of a few, all of the people listed were serious astrologers; they were not mere dabblers in the art as many modern scientists and skeptics would have you think.


 * QUESTION: If this was a list of notable physicists would anyone complain about it being too long? NO, because we have always heard and been taught that astrology is BS and has no scientific credibility, so it is hard to believe that so many eminent scholars, thinkers, and philosophers of the past few thousand years were so deeply involved in the study of astrology.  Also, before 1600 or so if one was referred to as a mathemetician (or an astronomer) one was also an astrologer then by default because of the copious amounts of math and astronomical calculations involved in the construction of an astrological chart.


 * Read the Astrology: Between Religion and the Empirical essay I linked to below. There's more to astrology than horoscopes and "practice." There's an entire belief system that is the foundation. Many so-called notable astrologers weren't astrologers through-and-through. In fact, many of them "practiced" astrology as a capitalistic venture. That is, they provided astrological services to survive in a time of primitivity and rejection of scientific thinking. Adraeus 19:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The List of Notable Astrologers is getting quite large, perhaps we could soon start a new article on which the full list is expanded with dates and short descriptions. The top 10 astrologers could keep a place of honour in the main article as well. Who are they though? Lumos3 13:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Astrology: Between Religion and the Empirical
Astrology: Between Religion and the Empirical by Dr. Gustav-Adolf Schoener and translated by Shane Denson.

This writing is very interesting. I suggest its reading. Adraeus 07:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Astrology
I have moved the overview of the separate History of astrology article into this one to provide a brief view of the history of the subject as I feel the article lack a historical context. Itas mostly based on the 1911 Britannica article. Lumos3 20:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Lumos3 I like what you did to the page with the history and all -- it is very well put together and also a well written section. I did want to insert a couple of pictures in main article sometime soon -- perhaps a picture of an astrological chart as an example, similar to the one that is under the "Natal chart" article, how it is embedded into the page and to the right--

The chart could be black and white instead of all colorful so as to seem more professional -- I was thinking about the chart of the "non-technical" new millenium, January 01st, 2000, at 12:00 AM EST in Times Square, NYC. There is a chart most everyone on Earth can relate to, you know? I think that would serve as an excellent example to show people who don't know the basis of valid astrology (the astrological chart or horoscope as it is sometimes called).


 * The history of astrology article isn't very reliable. It neglects so much that it really doesn't lend much historical context here.  Maybe I'll sign up to edit it myself one day if no one more qualified gets there first.  I have a degree in that sort of thing, but not the time to sit down and write.  Any takers?

PROOF for Isidore of Seville
Press CONTROL + F and search for "Seville"


 * Though Seville eventually came to reject natal astrology, he was always a major proponent of medical astrology/mundane astrology as is laid out in these pages:


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 

"The "De natura rerum" a manual of elementary physics, was composed at the request of King Sisebut, to whom it is dedicated. It treats of astronomy*, geography, and miscellanea. It is one of Isidore's best known books and enjoyed a wide popularity during the Middle Ages." -- previous page newadvent.org

* As any educated person knows there was no distinction between astrology and astronomy in those days -- it just does not list it as astrolomy, that is the mixture of astronomy/astrology.


 * 

"In his later life, Pierre d'Ailly was much concerned with defending astrology/astronomy from charges that it was inconsistent with Christianity. As a basis, he took the attitude endorsed long before by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) that one can distinguish between natural astrology* and superstitious astrology, and that it is the former which is consistent with Christianity, while the latter is not."

* Natural astrology being medical astrology and mundane astrology which was used and written about widely during his time, not the use of astrology for personal/predictive reasons, which many of the relgious believed would be somehow tampering with God's will.


 * 


 * I see no proof in any of this, nor do CAPITAL LETTERS make it one....


 * Your main thesis is flawed: "any educated person" &#8212; thank you &#8212; and see my transcription of Isidore &#8212; knows no such thing. The line was vague and lots of people crossed over it in one direction or the other; but in general, "natural astrology" refers to what we call astronomy, "superstitious astrology" to predictive astrology. I'll concede to you the very grey area of what we now call meteorology and where it impinges on physiology: the ancients, almost uniformly, did view the weather as having something to do with the farther heavens, and there was general agreement that weather affected physiology (see for example Vitruvius on the siting of towns &#8212; where clicking on the section numbers sends you to the Latin if you need it).


 * And before we go any further, in case you were tempted, it is pointless dismissing me as personally against astrology in any way. I've spent a good deal of time studying it, learned how to cast a chart 30 years ago, for a while even making some money casting charts, have a fair library of astrological material, and view astrology as valuable both in itself as a psychological descriptor and as part of the arsenal of "any educated person" in the fields of literary criticism or Antiquity. I've done statistical studies on some facets of astrology (one of them coming up in favor of a correlation between being an organist and having Mars conjunct Uranus: at 3&sigma; level of significance!) I am still &#8212; as you can see &#8212; fascinated by the subject; see for example my chart of Nero.


 * Now that we've got that out of the way.... Of your 6 refs, two are quite irrelevant: #4 is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Isidore, breathing not a word about astrology (which I'm perfectly willing to admit means nothing, given the recent opposition of the church to astrology: 19th-century and very straight-laced; but still, there is nothing about astrology there, for whatever reason). #6 is merely the astrology section of Tim Spaulding's site, which he named "Isidore-of-Seville" in honor of the great man because he was a polymath or an encyclopedist. Nowhere there is Isidore brought up in connection with astrology.


 * # 1, #2, and #5 are very tertiary sources, all probably paraphrasing the same secondary source, notice the very similar turns of phrase; none of them states unambiguously that Isidore was an astrologer. #1 views Isidore &#8212; again, for what that's worth, these are people like you and me writing modern opinions &#8212; as against astrology, not for it. #2 mentions Isidore incidentally except for repeating that he was in favor of medical astrology. #5 is the most incidental repeat of the same thing.


 * # 3 is better, since it actually quotes Isidore, even kindly footnoting the reference, although not linking it: IV.13.4 is here &#8212; on my own site, natch; if Isidore's astrologer-ness boils down to that, it's very weak indeed.


 * What is needed is some kind of proof that Isidore wrote about astrology per se, or practiced it. Again, this has nothing to do with being for or against astrology, or for or against Isidore, or Roman Catholicism: just a concern for facts. We wouldn't call Vanna White an "American politician" because she must surely have made some loose political statement like the rest of us all &#8212; nor even more politically active actors; we shouldn't call Isidore an astrologer if he wasn't one. &#8212; Bill 11:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. The issue is whether or not he was an "astrologer", did he do astrology-predictions or alchemy and all the rest of it. Educated people do not know that astronomy and astrology were one in the same. Humanity has been looking up at and studying the stars from the very beginning: astronomy is our oldest science. Many Middle Ages astronomer's were definately not astrologers, they considered astrology to be not in keeping with their Christian/Islamic/Jewish teachings. They were studing "the heavens" as a way to understand the universe of their God. Isidore wrote an encyclopedia, and in that encyclopedia, he tried to list all the endevors's of humanity, just like Wikipedia does today. What one may find in the Etymologiae concerning astrology is not proof that he was an astrologer: it simply does not fit his job description: it isn't what he did, (at least, not so far as history has recorded). func(talk) 20:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of Astrologers
I noticed this page is getting big; it will surely expand &#8212; it needs to be reworked from top to bottom, a lot of things haven't been said, don't know if I have the energy for it, but together I'm sure we will &#8212; so I've moved the list (which should also be expanded) to List of astrologers. I'm not very fond of lists, since Categories are a much more organized way of presenting the same skeleton, but they have the advantage of serving as a checklist for articles that need to be written, whereas Categories only include articles that have already been written. Ideally, though, the better list will be Category:Astrologers. At any rate, this sets "Astrology" on the same footing as "Physics" or "Medicine", which don't list every doctor or physicist on the article page; it does astrology no service to look like we're saying "See, look how many people were astrologers." &#8212; Bill 12:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Section moved to correct place chronologically - was originally placed above section about Isidore of Seville. Graham 87 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Platonic astrology as a study case
'M'oved the following from the article as it is too much of an essay style for an encyclopedia. Someone needs to re work this into a history of the idea. Lumos3 23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) --- Neo-Platonic astrology as a study case the case of Platonic and Neo-Platonic astrology should be of particular interest. Here one can easily observe both the strong motivations towards the establishment of an astrological science, and the collapse of the bulk of these motivations in the post-Galilean world.

We shall begin by following a line of thought that was very strong in many parts of the classical world. So strong, it was the reason for the deportation of Anaxagoras from Athens (he was advocating that the stars were nothing but “hot stones in the sky”), and the Epicureans made the fight against this view the main point of their moral philosophy.

So, imagine you live in a society with a technology that is less than modern: no cars, planes, etc. The only things you would observe that have the capacity to move on their own are living things. Hence only living things have what Aristotle calls (potential) "innate movement". But all living things decease (given enough time). All? Well, look at the sky - there you will find heavenly bodies moving perpetually in well-ordered paths. If living things are the only candidates for self-induced movement, then the heavenly bodies must be alive. They are also perpetual, hence immortal. They also seem to be moving in a nice circular fashion; hence they must be highly intelligent sentient beings (circles being the most perfect of geometric forms). What would you call a super-intelligent, immortal sentient being?

A god.

So the heavenly bodies are gods. That's well enough. But there are two other things you should notice about these gods:
 * 1 They seem to be unbound by earthly physics: they float high above, unaffected by gravity, and they also move in circular motion - a type of motion that is not very common down here on earth. So the rules that work in the heavens are not the same as the terrestrial laws of physics.
 * 2 We already know that the heavens directly affect our lives. Think about the weather: rain, snow, light, heat, cold, clouds... the different seasons... all these things govern our lives (esp. if we live in an agricultural society).

Let us sum things up. We have seen that:
 * Heavenly things govern life here on earth.
 * Heavenly things do not abide by earthly laws.
 * Heavenly things are gods.

It should be strongly emphasized that this view holds strongly as well in monotheistic cultures, and is in fact firmly embedded into classical Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Although they are no longer deemed to be actual gods, the heavenly bodies are still highly regarded in classical monotheistic religious philosophies, and are often looked upon as angels or some other instrument of the one god.

It is very easy to see how Astrology and Alchemy stem from this view. It would be only rational to try and consult the heavenly bodies - concerning almost everything – from the conception of babies to the signing of political and commercial treaties – hence Astrology. It would also be very tempting to utilize the forces governing the heavens down here. If you could “make” Mars work for you, you would be free from the confines of terrestrial physics – hence Alchemy.

It is also very easy to see why the Galilean views were so intimidating in the eyes of many renaissance scientists and policy-makers: Galileo’s observations were deadly to the dichotomy between earth and the heavens. He was showing that the stars were merely natural phenomena, rather then super-natural super-intelligent perpetually unchanging beings.

So, in the classical world, the case for astrology was almost trivial. The connections between heaven and earth are everywhere you look, and the heavens are clearly something supernatural. In the post Galilean world, however, advocates for Astrology face an excruciating task. The easy-to-observe influences of heaven are dealt with within the framework of sciences e.g. Meteorology and Solar Astronomy. Further influences are no longer deemed trivial, and are usually very hard to show.

---

Remarks in the last paragraph
It is very easy to see how Astrology and Alchemy stem from this view. It would be only rational to try and consult the heavenly bodies - concerning almost everything – from the conception of babies to the signing of political and commercial treaties – hy and astrology were one in the same. Humanity has been looking up at and studying the stars from the very beginning: astronomy is our oldest science. Many Middle Ages astronomer's were definately not astrologers, they considered astrology to be not in keeping with their Christian/Islamic/Jewish teachings. They were studing "the heavens" as a way to understand the universe of their God. Isidore wrote an encyclopedia, and in that encyclopedia, he tried to list all the endevors's of humanity, just like Wikipedia does today. What one may find in the Etymologiae concerning astrology is not proof that he was an astrologer: it simply does not fit his job description: it isn't what he did, (at least, not so far as history has recorded). func(talk) 20:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article is nearly 32K
A warning has appeared when the edit box is opened that this article is now nearly 32K bytes long and needs to be split up into smaller articles. I suggest that the Cases for and against sections plus the Astrology and science section be moved into a new article called something like - The validity of astrology. A short summary of this would remain in the main astrology article. Any comments Lumos3 17:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Make sub-articles. ConfessedSockPuppetJunior 06:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Observing that many sections were exact duplicates of things in other articles, I deleted a lot of sections and made them into links saying "See (such-and-such)". That takes care of the 32 KB warning.  Hope these edits aren't too drastic.  I just thought it would be better not to have the exact same information duplicated in more than one article. --Slartibartfast 01:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

unclear text
what does this mean? I cant make sense out of it. do they influence or not?


 * Many of those who practice astrology believe that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence, or correlate with but do not influence, people's personality traits, important events in their lives, and even physical characteristics.

Knightt 21:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Opinions differ. Most reasonable people believe heavenly bodies neither influence nor correlate with mundane events. Some astrologers believe they correlate with human activities because they influence them; some other astrologers believe they correlate with human activiities for some other reason. - Nunh-huh 01:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): Someone is psycho-babbling Carl Jung's earlier explaination that the planetary positions have to do with the "synchronicity" of events. Just before his death, Jung capitulated to the "causality" explaination of events.

The case against Astrology - Distance + life prediction
I'm tempted to just delete the recent edits to the case against astrology, as both points are based on a misunderstanding of astrological practice, and I'm not sure that scientists make these criticisms. Before you accuse me of bias, I am not an astrologer, and I do not believe in astrological practice. That having been said, let me address the two points. The first point - distance is not taken into account - is invalid. While the typical chart has no indication of distance built in, the different aspects are given degrees of importance. For instance, many astrologers believe that the Sun is the most major aspect, and the moon is the second most major aspect. The second point - about a life predictive system - is also misguided. No astrologer makes the claim that the predictions of astrology are immutable. In fact, astrologers say that astrology describes influences, which if properly understood can help the person being analyzed change the future! These criticisms are strawmen, and I think it does the argument against astrology a disservice to keep them. I will be deleting them in a few days unless someone can convince me otherwise. Cardshark


 * Hello. Some comments. Yes some specialists in paranormal stuff do this kind of comments. (See French book Henri Broch - Au coeur du paranormal). About distances. Indeed astrology mentiones some aspects related to distances. But, and that is the point, in such a case it means distances matters for astrologer and this criteria must be mentioned for all objects officially considered in astrology (it is not the case) but also... plainly all objects in universe. Mentionning one or two (or 10000) distances is not enough. To be precise all the signes would have to be charted in terms of distances for each of the stars making them up. In other word this point is a consistency one. About life predictive system: No astrologer makes the claim that the predictions of astrology are immutable. The very point. Either your are predicting something whatsoever and it has to be observable as predicted, or your are just speculating and you can be ignored. Actually the problem is mixed up in your comment: the concept of prediction is misunderstood in astrology (and many other domains). Astrologer hides behind a smoke screen the fact that their predictions (whatsoever: facts or influence which is wordable as probability) are not observable, therefore even less "verifiable" and utlimately are not prediction at all. I think those two points are rather informative because they are true, verifiable, and unlike for example precession of the equinoxes, any one can understand them. So no: certainly not delete! Rewrite if you please for sure. Gtabary 11:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You said - " The very point. Either your are predicting something whatsoever and it has to be observable as predicted, or your are just speculating and you can be ignored. " I'm sorry, but with all due respect, this is a ridiculous argument. For example, a geneticist may be able to tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying of a heart attack based on your genetic makeup, but that by changing your eating habits, you can lower your risk of that heart attack. Is the prediction useless because it is not immutable? Obviously not. The prediction is very helpful because by altering your lifestyle, you can affect your life in a positive way. Furthermore, the argument is a straw man defense because it argues against a position that astrologers do not advocate. It doesn't help the argument against astrology at all, rather it weakens it. Unless you can demonstrate that astrologers hold this view, and that some sort of qualified person such as a scientist argues against astrology based on this view, it has no place in the article. I'll give it a couple more days for further discussion, and then I will remove it from the article. Cardshark


 * I am going to prove you incorrect, will you feel ridiculous ? (Ok just teasing there :-) . Probably better not to use ridiculous.) A geneticist may be able to tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying of a heart attack and, that's the catch, those 10% are repetedly observable at the scale of a population, over a 50 years period, statisticaly . Summary: a probabilistic prediction is done AND the prediction is observable. That's where para-science life-prediction predictions fails: Even with long time and an important sample to analyse, none of the predictions are observable. Astrologer do pretend to have a kind of prediction system be it absolute or probabilistic. If it's neither absolute nor porbabilistic, that's not prediction but speculation. That is technically the answer to your question. Note the orginal point of the paragraph is still unchanged and valid: knowing the future is meaningless if you can't change it; knowing the future is meaningless if you can change it because then you don't know the future; not knowing the future is... not knowing the future. I don't understand the use of straw man: Please explain me what else astrology pretend to do but to kind of predict (even only probabilisticaly) the future ? I'll suggest an other wording of the paragraph in some time. Gtabary 11:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, saying "If they believe this, they're wrong because.... and if they believe that, they're wrong because..." is the classic example of the straw man argument. Click the link, and read the section labeled "rhetorical use", it gives a thorough definition. Furthermore, I stand by the analogy that I made to genetics. Your paragraph said that either there was no point of knowing the future because it was immutable, or the prediction was just speculation and therefore useless. If an astrologer said you have a tendency to be obese, and you should watch your diet, that is not a useless prediction. If your argument is that astrology is not a science, and therefore it's predictions are wrong (and therefore useless), that topic is very well covered elsewhere in the article, and your paragraph was redundant (and less well-reasoned than others on the page). Furthermore, since astrologers do not claim to make immutable predictions, at least half your argument was a straw man. (sign please)

(Reset indent). Hi again. I read the straw man article. Interesting. Though unlike what you think orginial paragraph do not qualify as a straw man argument. Here is why.

What orginal paragraph does is quite different: It takes what astrology is reported to be - Many of those who practice astrology believe that the positions of certain celestial bodies either influence, or correlate with but do not influence, people's personality traits, important events in their lives, and even physical characteristics. which the single point for strology to be - and refutes it. Name it future prediction, probablities, influences it boils down to the same: predict somehow, something. There is no presenting whith (cf straw man) distortion, portion, fiction. Therefore there is no straw man stuff. End of story.

Now about the if a then wrong, or b then wrong and a = non b; then all wrong invalidity and "classicality". Sory but if a is wrong as well as b is, well, all is wrong. And in our case indeed both are wrong.

The analogy with genetics do not stand because... The geneticist do not have to observe his 10%, because the 10% are the result of observations. In other word the geneticist do not have to prove existance of facts for the facts are the base of the affirmations. Astrology still have to exibit even only some facts to back up affirmations, or to be observable after affirmations. Shorthand: no need to prove what's already proven, plenty of need for what's never been.

It is very possible that other paragraphs cover better than my contrib, some aspect of this. Though I did not read this interesting paradox elsewhere, which stimulate thinking on a fairly correct ground.

I was thanking about a milder wording like: ''A paradox seams to arise in life predictive system: if one's able to know the future, it's thanks a degree of immutability. Depending on this degree one can wonder what is the point in knowing such future if it's not changable. In the extreme, a completly knowable future would leave us with no interest in knowing it at all.''

Don't forget to sign comments. :-)

Gtabary 16:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to make my last edit more balanced, shortend, including your main point, immutability and is there more to stimulate thoughts as opposed to claim invalidity. Gtabary 14:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is extremely long winded. The case against astrology is that there is no scientific basis for it. That is all that needs to be said in this section.

Combining "Skeptics View..."/"Case Against..." Sections
Okay, just had an edit reverted. I think we should combine these two sections or subsections, and do the same for "Astrologers View..." and "Case For..." sections as well.

This should make it easier for scientists here to make a short and convincing argument against astology without having to get into an edit war with people who disagree. This section could link to another article as well. The page if 35k and I think this section needs to be first on the chopping block.


 * In view of the unwieldy size of this article I suggest that the Cases for and against sections plus the Astrology and science section be moved into a new article called something like - The validity of astrology . A short summary of this would remain in the main astrology article. - Reposted from section on articles size above.Lumos3 21:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just done the above, moved the entire discussion on astrology's validity to a new article, see Validity of astrology. In order to keep the balance of the main article I have added the robust warning on astrology from the 1911 Britannica astrology article to the introduction. Lumos3 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice. Can I go and fix that now please?? Dave 06:35, 24 Apr 2005


 * Please do 219.162.148.31, I agree it needs a lot of work to make the arguments on both sides logical. You might like to get a Wikipedia user name if you will be doing a lot of editing. There's no charge and you will be able to keep track of all your edits that way and build up a creditable record as an editor. Lumos3 11:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Planets
I notice there are no pages giving the astrological meanings of the planets. Something I hope to remedy, calling them Sun (astrology) etc, and them linking them to this article.Squiquifox 00:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Horoscope for Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article states that the project went public on January 15, 2001 - but doesn’t mention a time of day. Has anyone constructed a horoscope for the project? It would be interesting to see one posted here. Lumos3 20:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The history of Wikipedia article doesn't state a time of day either, but it mentions that the server was located in San Diego. I'm not sure what a "real astrologer" would use for Wikipedia's "birth chart", but I made an image of a chart for January 15, 2001 at 12:00 PM (noon) in San Diego using the astrology program Kepler. You (or anyone else) can do whatever you want with it. Also, if we ever find out a more definite "birth" time, I can make another one. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/apollia/wikipedialaunched.gif
 * --Slartibartfast 00:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Would any skilled astrology like to have a go at interpretation of this chart and post it here? Lumos3 21:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply -
 * I John_Charles_Webb have begun to create an analysis for Wikipedia's astrological chart. It is currently (July 19th 2005) a work-in-progress. [] See, Discussion portion of image link.

Wikipedia's Horoscope is here:
Image & Discussion Click on the image to the right to see a full size version. Then click on the discussion page of the image to discuss its interpretation. Lumos3 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Why I removed the "constellations of the zodiac and the parts of the body" section
This is because the signs in astrology are associated with so many tons of other things besides body parts - for instance, gemstones, metals, animals, plants, etc., etc., etc. - that I don't see any reason why the associations with body parts need to be singled out and spotlighted in the main article. --Slartibartfast 01:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Free natal reports
I noticed that there were no free natal report links here, so I added them. I didnt find any good free Chinese & Jewish natal link. So still searching for it .farhansher

Explanation of restored sections
I discovered templates, and made a few, so that now, people viewing (for instance) the astrological sign keywords text will all see the same text - whether they're viewing it from zodiac, astrology, or astrological sign - and any improvements/edits to that text will affect all pages which contain it. More details, if desired, are on my Talk page.


 * --Slartibartfast 11:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Numerology and Astrology
It says that "Zero is ruled by the planet Pluto, which gives it many transforming and regenerating qualities. It has a lot of depth and intensity, which makes it a transcendental number indeed." -- But 0 isn't a transcendental number at all.

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): Here are the neo-Chaldean numerological equivalents:  1 Sun, Sunday; 2 Moon, Monday; 3 Jupiter, Thursday; 4 Uranus, 5 Mercury, Wednesday; 6 Venus, Friday; 7 Neptune, 8 Saturn, Saturday; 9 Mars, Tuesday (& Pluto). The so-called Pytagorean system for numerological correlations to the alphabet are bogus. The valid neo-Chaldean equvilents for the alphabet are: 1 AIJQY, 2 BKR, 3 CGLS, 4 DMT, 5 EHNX, 6 UVW, 7 OZ, 8 FP, 9 nothing.

What astrologers "don't know" about the span of each constellation
The "boundaries" of each constellation were decided in 1930, so seeing as to how astrology is thousands of years older than that, the argument that "they don't know" these totally modern, artificially drawn boundaries is completely bogus. I'd edit it out but I'm afraid my dial-up connection would cut off at least half of this humonguous article.Doovinator 00:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would you edit it out? I assume you're talking about the part in The case against astrology. Since people actually use that as an argument against the usefulness of astrology, it's our job to document that as part of The case against.


 * Also, you complain that the modern boundaries are "artificially drawn". Firstly, the ancient boundaries were artificially drawn too. Secondly, we call the same set of stars "Virgo" that we did back then. If the sun is actually inside that group of stars for 44&deg; of arc, how is that bogus? I can't vouch for the actual arc lengths, but the argument sounds logical to me. Foobaz &middot; &#10000;  01:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In the original scheme the "boundaries" came first, like longitude lines. The constellations were the stars which happened to be in "x" area of the sky, not the other way around. It's as if we'd been defining "America" as "a land mass between 30 and 165 west longitude", and a geographical commission came along and declared the actual boundaries to be thus-and-so and therefore everyone who came before is "wrong". The definition has changed, not actual boundaries. All astrologers are fully aware of the "boundaries" of the constellations as defined in 1930, but this has nothing whatever to do with astrological "signs". If the sun is in the area of the sky where it habitually resides in the last month of summer, then it's in the astrological sign "Virgo". After it has passed through that area, the days start getting shorter and it's in the astrological sign "Libra". The stars are convenient markers for these areas of the sky, but nothing more. Astronomy is a completely different science, and has a different jargon.Doovinator 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Doovinator is right. Astrology divides the zodiac in twelve equal parts, and this matches roughly with the existing constellations (not through coincidence). The one legitimate point of dissenssion within the astrological community is whether to stick to a calendar zodiac or to follow the precession of the equinoxes (which leads to nearly a full sign's worth of difference nowadays). The term "sign" is also used to mean 30° (360° divided in 12).
 * Urhixidur 03:10, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

This discussion is very confused. Nobody seem to "get it." Here are a few simple facts: The zodiac used by Western astrologers has been unchanged since at least ancent Greece, when it was agreed among Western astrologers that the ecliptic (which has nothing to do with stars millions of light-years away) is the basis of the twelve zodiacal divisions. Not the constellations! Critics of astrology persist in insisting that the "constellations" should be the basis of the zodiac, but they are not. Astrology uses a local system, namely, a system based entirely on our own solar system. The zodiac used in astrology is the relation between the earth and the sun. It is twelve evenly divided sections of the ecliptic beginning at the Vernal Equinox (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Aries) when spring begins and the days and nights are pretty evenly divided (hence the name Equinox) and extending to the Summer Solstice (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Cancer) when the days are longest and nights shortest in the Northern Hemisphere and then to the Autumnal Equinox (beginning of the sign, not the constellation Libra) when again there is an equality and then on to the Winter Solstice (beginning of the sign, not the constellation, Capricorn). All this is very clear. It is only the names of these divisions which are confusing because there happen to be constellations of stars with the same names, now out of synch with the signs although they were in synch with them millennia ago, presumably when they were first named. But when it is realized that the twelve ecliptical divisions are really twleve even divisions of the orbit of the earth around the sun, based upon the entirely measurable seasons of the year, we see that astrology is local, centered in our solar system. The twelve signs used by Western astrologers are twelve "fields" within the earth's orbit. Why they work, no one knows (nor does anyone know the ultimate "why" about much of anything in science), but it is dishonest to imply that they must rely upon remote constellations to have any efficacy. I myself decided upon them, rather than the so-called "sidereal" zodiac based on the constellations, after long and careful observation, comparing the positions of planets and the sun in the two systems.

Reply: Western astrology is based upon the geometric relationships (aspects) of the planets (at any given time). The geometric relationships remain constant (for any particular astrology chart) regardless of one's employing the tropical or sidereal methods. See, External Link http://www.templeofsolomon.org/astro.htg/astro.htm for a complete primer (and errors) on Western Astrology. One of the the main benefits of the study of (archetypal) astrology is the information regarding the Pantheon of Celestial Gods (Mars, Jupiter, Venus, etc.) and recognizing that these archetypal energies operate, to some degree, to erode all of the western images of pathos (crucified Christ, treks through the desert, etc.) and to refresh our minds with positive (pain free) imagery. Astrology has been discredited for two primary reasons. One reason is apparent, being the invention of the telescope which revealed (Galileo) that the Earth is not the center of the solar system (astrological charts place the Earth in the center). The second reason, deeply veiled and hidden, is that Christianity has attempted to discredit and debunk astrology with Gregorian calendar changes and seeming intentional calendar errors - throwing off the zodiac - which seem designed to hide the strong association between Christianity and astrology. (e.g. The Son (Sun) that dies (sunset) and is resurrected (sunrise), the Son (Sun) and the 12 apostles (signs of the zodiac), the son (sun) "born of a virgin" i.e., The sun's precession Precession of The Equinox out of Virgo into Leo, the sign of the king. One can gradually, by the study of astronomy and western astrology, begin to discern that The New Testament is (quite possibly) an astrological/astronomical allegory (a midrash) which formed the basis of Christianity. The length of the constellations is (eventually) inconsequential to a dedicated student of astrology because, over time, the advanced adept can adjust his or her own astrological chart interpretations and alignments to compensate for what he or she observes and experiences regarding their chart (rectification). Sure, it is unraveling a great puzzle which includes many red herrings but the dedicated student will gradually arrive at deeper spiritual/metaphysical truths regarding personal identity and the deeper purpose of life, including spiritual enlightenment. John Charles Webb posted July 19th 2005

Andrew Homer: The aspects between the planets is ONE of the tools used by Astrologers. Vedic Astrology uses the arbitrary CONSTELLATIONS. Western Astrologers designate the 12 equal SIGNS of the Zodiac by using the first second of Spring as the reference point for zero degree Aries - with 30 degrees assigned to each of the 12 Zodiac Signs. Constellations and their boundaries are arbitrary. Zodiac Signs have a fix reference point. If one has bothered to study Astronomy, one would know that it's the Astronomers who, around 1980, capitulated and also started to use the first second of Spring as their reference point for the Zodiac, too. The more proper title for this section should be "What psuedo-Astronomers Don't Know About Astrology."


 * I have moved this section to its correct place chronologically. Graham 87 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed strange accusation of astronomers
I removed the suggestion that the constellations were redrawn to discredit astrologers. The 1930 convention had two main purposes: 1. Establishing one set of commonly agreed upon constellations. 2. Eliminating 'blank spaces' between constellations. This was done to facilitate astronomy, enabling astronomers to easily indicate a given sector of the sky. If there is any credible sources claiming otherwise, please link to them.

If the astronomers of 1930 wanted to discredit astrology that badly, they may have selected the far simpler course of merely pointing out that the signs of astrology bear little resemblance to the actual positions of heavenly bodies. --Spazzm 00:47, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the notion that the ecliptic didn't cross Ophiuchus before 1930, since it is clearly contradicted by this: Ophiuchus

The story seems to be that before 1930, the area that now only belongs to Ophiuchus belonged to two or more constellations. In order to formalize it, astronomers had to choose one. If they choose one of the astrological signs, they would avoid angering astrologers. If they choose Ophiuchus, one of the most important documents in astronomy, Kepler's "De stella nova in pede Serpentarii" (On the New Star in Ophiuchus's Foot) would still be meaningful to future astronomers. They would also honor Kepler and Ptolemy who first described the constellation over 1700 years earlier. It comes as no surprise that they acted as they did. --Spazzm 01:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

I removed some of the more blatant misrepresentations as well: Ophiuchus was intersected by the ecliptic before 1930. It is not a 'very small part' of Ophiuchus that lies across the ecliptic - the Sun is in Ophiuchus from 2005-11-30 to 2005-12-18, ca. 19 days. As a comparision it is in Cancer from 2005-07-21 to 2005-08-11, ca. 22 days. (According to Celestia). The constellations were not clear and agreed upon before 1930 - the area in question, that now belongs to the foot of Ophiuchus, belonged to more than one constellation. Ophiuchus was not extended, it was Scorpius that was diminished. --Spazzm 01:45, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

New articles on Jewish, Christian and Muslim views
Many Jewish authorities had views on astrology, especially Maimonides, but there is no systematic discussion on this issue. I thus am working on a new article, Jewish views on Astrology. My current sources include the Talmud (I own the Soncino version); the Jewish Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia Judaica, the collected works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, as well as other sources. I have now written text that includes the basis of Jewish views of astrology, based on mitzvot in the Torah, and it discusses the various ways in which these mitzvot have been interpreted. I then summarize the views of Nahmanides, Maimonides and Gersonides, and offer brief views from Reform and Conservative Jews, and from two Orthodox rabbis who have written on this issue, Rabbis Barry Freundel and Nachum Amsel. I will create the new article later tonight, and I hope we can bring in more sourced material and discussions. RK

We should begin a stub on Christian views of astrology, and Muslim views of Astrology. I know that astrology has been popular in many Christian communities over the past 2,000 years, and as such deserves serious discussion. (At the moment, I have no idea how astrology has been received in the Islamic world.) RK 18:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): A legitimate "Christian view of Astrology" would divulge that "Christianity" sourced from the Persian Mithraic religion brought back to the Mediterranean world by Roman businessmen and legionnaires. From hindsight, the Mithraic religion was half Christianity and half Astrology. December 25th was the Celebration of Mithras since at least 70 BC. The Roman emperor renamed Mithras "Sol Invictus".

Case for astrology? Text is very off-topic
I see that over time many proponents of astrology have added their views here, but I am truly puzzled by the section on the Case for astrology. It contains absolutely zero data for astrology, in any shape or form. The fact that tides affect many living organisms has nothing to do with astrology, stars, or anything supernatural. If there are actually people who use this as evidence for astrology, then they are using the word "astrology" in a way that has nothing to do with the contents of this article. The only "evidence" I have even heard of for astrology isn't even discussed in this article; that evidence is the first report on the so-called Mars effect, which has since been discredited. RK 20:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not the right person add a pro-astrology section. There used to be a longer section, but it contained incoherent rambling, strange accusations and outright misrepresentations. It has been pruned down a bit since then, I'm glad to say. --Spazzm 23:47, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)


 * The section needs a better topic sentence to the effect that the gravitational influence of celestial bodies on the Earth may affect our perception of tides and theoretically our character. This is quite tenuous obviously. The only bodies that produce a tidal effect on the Earth are the Moon and Sun and of course astrology isn't limited to these two. Even if we accept tidal influence from other bodies you still have to make the leap and accept that this correlates to personality and life probabilities. I have read that statistically significant differences in life outcomes occur in people born at different times of year (likelihood of being in accident, obesity etc.) but this is much better explained by seasonal variation than astrology. Marskell 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems plain to me that if astrology is real, then it is supernatural. Attempts to find scientific justifications for it are simply wrong-headed Pmurray bigpond.com 05:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): As the saying goes, "the taste is in the pudding." Experiential evidence and emperial experiences are completely valid concepts and considerations. Year after year, one of America's top stock market analysts uses astrology. A lot of research has been used by Michel & Francoise Guaquelin regardings folk EXCEPTIONAL in their career field. Read "The Seven Windows" regarding disease. The study of the natal charts of the common components in the natal charts of outstanding military strategists is amazing. Sweeping under the rug what has happened to American Presidents when Jupiter and Saturn conjuncted in an Earth Sign (Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn) are we?

Rudolf Steiner
Hello Astrology Buffs,

I have included Rudolf Steiner's birth data in his article and was wondering if someone who has more know how and time than me would be kind enough to run it up on software and post the diagram on his article. I am worried that if it isn't done someone who poo poos astrology will take the information out. I had to search far and wide for that data, and it would be a shame if it was deleted.

Also, someone made a post that 0 is not transcendental. I beg to differ. If mankind had not discovered 0 then we would would not be nearly as progressed as we currently are technologically. If that is not transcendantal, I don't know what is.

Regards, --TracyRenee 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. Sorry that I don't contribute more, but I have so much to do and so little time. I am currently studying for my accuntancy exams as well as working full time as well as pursuing my writing.


 * Zero is not a Transcendental number: "[...] a transcendental number is any irrational number that is not an algebraic number [...]"
 * Zero can't be transcendental because it's not irrational; it can be perfectly described by the sum of a finite number of fractions.
 * If we accept that a transcendental number is any number that is necessary for our current level of technology, well then all numbers are transcendental. --Spazzm 00:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): Check Lois Rodden's AstroDataBank for the charts of many celebrities. There are Rudolph Steiner high schools in Europe & New York City.

Numerology and Astrology
Spazzm,

You obviously know much more about mathematics than I do. When I said that Zero is transcendantal, I was speaking metaphorically and did not know that there is an actual term called transcental to describe numbers. I stand corrected. Feel free to edit the word and use a word that you feel is more appropriate.

--TracyRenee 13:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TracyRenee. I see that in the meantime the passage in question has been moved to a different article. --Spazzm 03:58, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Removed quoted book review of Seymour's book
I removed the quoted book review because the legality of quoting almost the whole review is rather questionable. Also it was far too long. --Spazzm 03:57, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

this all seems very confused
surely an article about Astrology should mostly be concerned with history and the various methods used to determine predictions, rather than an elaborate and confusing argument about falsifiability and "pseudoscience"?


 * Great idea. Since there are so many different traditions and methods in astrology, perhaps it would be best to have detailed discussions on subpages, e.g. Western astrology? --Spazzm 00:36, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

The "see also" section...
...is absurdly huge. "See also" is not intended to be a complete index to every topic related to this one; it should restrict itself to articles that notably contribute to the context of the topic (that is, things like anaretic degree are just too minor), it should not duplicate section article links (like astrology and alchemy), it should not mention topics that do not establish a relationship (tropical year) or are covered in the article itself (birthday through natal chart), it should not duplicate lists (people in list of astrologers don't need separate mention in the "see also", unless they were defining to the field, in which case they should be in the article to begin with).

A complete list of astrology-related articles is what Category:Astrology is intended to cover. In short: if you need a table to lay out the "see also" section, you're doing something wrong. Consider coalescing topics in new lists (I think List of astrological factors has merit).

I've weeded a lot, adding Category:Astrology or Category:Astrological factors to the linked article while I was at it. But there's just too much! Please help out in trimming the list down and properly categorizing the items. JRM 13:11, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

History mini-section
This small section includes a link to the "Jewish views" article, but I don't think that it's particuarlly noteworthy for this small section. I don't think that a significant percentage of people reading that section are interested in what Jewish people happen to think about astrology. Nor would that be an appropriate place to link to "Muslim views on astrology," or Hindu, Christian, Peruvian, etc. For now I'm moving the link to the "see also" section. At some point, someone may want to make a section, and possibly an article, on various culture's views on astrology, which could then link to all those sorts of articles. But at any rate, that sort of thing is only tangentally related to the history of astrolgy, so I'm moving it.

--Blackcats 22:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-directs
I looked at this page two months ago and in stopping by it today I notice the bulk of material has been re-directed (history of astrology and validity of astrology). The page as it stands looks bad and reads bad. After the intro there is a series of series of choppy, meandering level 2 headlines. "Validity of astrology" particularly has little logical basis as an outside article and should be re-included here. I will re-merge this in a day or two unless someone has a good argument why not. Marskell 23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See the discussion on splitting off the Validity of Astrology section to another page above (Combining "Sceptics View..."/"Case Against..." Sections). The article was over large and growing and was getting the 35K warning mesage. The idea was to keep the arguments in the Validity article and a concise description of Astrology in the main one and I think this is basically sound. I agree both articles still need a lot of work to improve them. Wikipedia's structure allows subordinate articles to be spun off in this way without loosing coherence. Lumos3 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind
It might be intersting to point out that "star-signs" is probably the most widely used classification of personality types.

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): "star-signs" is a contradiction. Zodiac Signs have NO relation to stars nor arbitrary constellations.

Categorization
There seems to be a serious disagreement (a.k.a. edit war) over categorisation of this article. The categorisations proposed range between two extremes:


 * Astrology
 * Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

The relevant parts of the Manual of style appear under Categorization, from which I'll quote here. First off, one should decide whether or not an article belong under a given category:
 * * Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
 * * If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
 * If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate.
 * Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

Second, the issue of multiple categorisation (emphasis mine):
 * An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used, however —categories become less effective the more there are on a given article.
 * An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Applying the multiple sub-classing rule (an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory), we note that:
 * Category:Astrology is itself categorized under Divination, Solar system, New Age, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience
 * Category:Astrology is also categorized under Occult and Prediction by way of Divination
 * Category:Mysticism is itself categorized under Religious behaviour and experience, and Spirituality
 * Category:Philosophy is itself categorized under Abstraction, Belief, Culture, and Science
 * Category:Prophecy is itself categorized under Prediction, and Religious behaviour and experience
 * Category:Religion is itself categorized under Culture, Belief, and Human societies

Applying this to the long list of categories, it shrinks thus:
 * Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

Note also that Astrological factors is itself categorised under Astrology, so one could drop Astrology in its favour. However, since « an article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category », that seems silly (to me, anyway). Second, the category Astrologers seems destined to collect articles on people who practiced astrology (like the Astronomers category groups articles on people who practice astronomy), so it seems irrelevant to categorise Astrology under it. A link to the Astrology article could easily be added in the Astrologers category page's comment line (something like « This category concerns practitioners of Astrology »). The same argument applies to the Occultists category, which Astrologers are categorised under in any case. Hence:


 * Astrology; Abstraction; Astrologers; Astrological factors; Belief; Divination; Mysticism; New Age; Occult; Occultists; Philosophy; Prediction; Prophecy; Protoscience; Pseudoscience; Religion; Religious behaviour and experience; Solar system; Spirituality

This leaves the question as to whether Astrology (the article) belongs under Mysticism, Philosophy, and Religion. I do not think anyone really believes Astrology to be a religion --there is no worship involved. Is it a form of mysticism? I'm not so sure, since the only "mystery" involved is the purported mechanism of action. The movement of celestial bodies and their assignations in the zodiac houses (and so on) is not mysterious, but rather mechanical. Finally, I also find the Philosophy connection rather weak. Philosophy is « the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask ». Which of those questions (listed under Category:Philosophy) does Astrology critically study? I could not identify a single one.

It seems clear, in light of the foregoing, that the Astrology article belongs in the Astrology category and only in that category, as per the Manual of style. Disagreements should be voiced here.

Urhixidur 15:23, 2005 July 15 (UTC)


 * This article is needed to be under "Esotericism" new re-categorization (which contains "Occult" and "Mysticism" articles, among others) since Astrology always had a key role in majority of systems based on esoteric knowledge (of past civilizations and of the current-day global society). Please give your feedback. --GalaazV 18:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Homer (StarHeart): I have fun irritating my fellow Astrologers by referring to Astrology as the most "muscle-bound" religion on the planet. My fellow (insecure) Astrologers are intent on needing to prove Astrology as a science. From empericism and experience since 1969, I know Astrology works. I don't lose sleep over others' opinions regarding the validity of Astrology. Try to find ANY other religion with as much emperical validation as Astrology. Besides, since the U.S. Constitution ensures "religious freedom", I have more constitutional protection practicing Astrology as a "religion" than I do practicing Astrology as a "science."

Astrofaces advertisement
I removed the astrofaces advertisement from the article. It is inappropriate to hijack this article to promote that site. The link is more appropriate where it belongs in the external links. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)