Talk:Astrology/Archive 4

Major revisions of the article
So, I finally started making some major revisions of the article tonight. Let me know if you have any issues or suggestions, or maybe if there is something that needs to be discussed. There is still a lot more to do. I only got through maybe half of it tonight. I'm trying to edit out a lot of the extraneous information so that there is more space for broad sections on the different traditions. I think that since horoscopic astrology is the dominant world tradition, that it does deserve a larger space for explanation in the article, but I'm open to other opinions about the subject. Lumos? --Chris Brennan 06:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have included some of the material you have removed in the western astrology article where it is more appropriate. I agree the main astrology article should have a slight western bias since this is what the general reader will be expecting. But detail should be in the western astrology article. Lumos3 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Psychological astrology" is not a major tradition. It's not even a tradition. ALL the techniques used by people who call themselves "psychological" astrologers are the same ones that are used by everyone else--usually minus several dozen, actually. It's an approach. Add it, and the "spiritual astrology" lobby will want to put their hammock too, and a hundred others. They are all part of the approaches of modern western astrology. Uranian and Cosmobiology are radically different approaches that pretty much ignore most of the earlier tradition. I think "psychological" shouldn't be on the list. (By the way, the Hamburg School is Uranian astrology, completely and congruently. It was redundant to list it.)  NaySay 15:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To say that Psychological Astrology isn't a valid category is completely incompetent. Astrology started as a divinatory system. See The Moment of Astrology by Geoffrey Cornelius. But starting 1900-1930, psychological astrology shot off as a rocket with the intellectual Astrologers of Europe following the works of the like of Freud and Jung. See Harry F. Darling, Dane Rudyhar, and popular periodicals (National Astrology magazine, Horoscope magazine, American Astrology magazine) which started in the 1930's with their strong slant toward psychological analysis. StarHeart 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the psychological astrology link in, but I don't quite oppose it either because there are some interesting facets of the hardcore psychological camp which do set it apart from other traditions. One of the major ones that comes to mind is the rule that you aren't really supposed to predict anything.  In this way, the psychological camp is purposely trying to distance itself from the other traditions by invoking an explict ban on what one of the purposes of the art was for centuries.  Plus you have a different theoretical and philosophical model predicated on Jung and Rudhyar which also brings along with it specific techniques which inform the rest of the system, like Rudhyar's lunation cycle for example.


 * As far as Uranian and the Hamburg School goes, in the US the two terms are synonymous, but I have heard that Uranian is considered to be a breakaway school, or a subset of the Hamburg School at this point in Europe because they are attempting some sort of reorganization of the system. I would therefore perhaps list Uranian as a subset of the Hamburg School.


 * Oh yeah, and Andrew Homer- NaySay's comment that psychological astrology isn't a distinct tradition isn't an "incompetent" statement.  It was a perfectly legitimate issue to bring up that is still very much open for discussion.  She is right that the psychological camp doesn't really boast a completely different technical structure which is one of the characteristics that defines different traditions.  The issue at this point, I think, is whether or not the different philosophical and theoretical stance is enough to warrent a listing as a separate tradition.  In the future, please keep the personal attacks to yourself.  Thanks.  --Chris Brennan 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, NaySay raises an exremely important question the more I think about it.. I don't really think that every different school of astrology should be listed when the technical structure of those systems isn't different from the others, and the only difference is the theological or religious structure surrounding it.  One example that is on the current list is the so-called Kabbalistic astrology.  I think that this is just an adaptation of Medieval or Modern astrology to the Kabbalah, and not a specific tradition in it of itself.  But I'm not positive on that.  I didn't want to delete the reference quite yet in the event that someone wanted to defend it.  But maybe there should be a discussion about how this should be dealt with in the future.  --Chris Brennan 01:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris's suggestion makes sense, especially given that many of these forms of astrology are hard to see as notable per se. JoshuaZ 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's dictating "technical structure"? Valid and distinct themes have been ignored: Weather Astrology, Market Analysis Astrology, Political Astrology, Relocational Astrology, Compatibility/Synastry Astrology, Financial Astrology, Economic Astrology, Historical Analysis Astrology, Mundane Astrology, Chart Rectification, etc.  StarHeart 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for just demonstrating why we shound't have a long list, unless you have a suggested procedure to decide which ones stay in. JoshuaZ 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ...  You do realize, StarHeart, that the majority of the subjects that you just named are correctly listed further down the astrology article page in the 'branches of horoscopic astrology section', right?  How does this even remotely constitute being "ignored"?  In fact, lets go through these.
 * "Weather astrology" - This is explicitly addressed with the entry of "Meteorological astrology" which "uses methods in the attempt to predict the weather."
 * You list "Market analysis Astrology", "Financial Astrology", and "Economic Astrology", which are all the same thing. This subject isn't a specific tradition, but it is an application of the principles of other pre-existant branches of horoscopic astrology (i.e. natal, horary, mundane) to the subject of economics.  If we were to list this, then there are hundreds of other applications of astrology to subjects that we could list as well, but that would be silly.  We are trying to be concise and to the point here.

Do your homework. As a member of the International Society of Business Astrologers (ISBA, HQ in Copenhagen), I beg to differ. "Financial Astrology" & "Vocational (Career) Astrology" refers to a particular study of an individual's natal chart. "Economic Astrology" has to do with the study of a nation's or global economic vitality. "Market analysis Astrology" has to do with particular categories of a nation's speculative markets, ie. gold or coffee or home developers. StarHeart 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. It's an application of existing astrological techniques to modern social theory.  But so was the Arabic "Part of Turnips."  Astrologers have always applied their existing techniques to the problems they had at hand.  I can come up with six very different approaches for vocational analysis--all coming from different traditions, looking at the same data.  Whether you're looking at the ruler of the tenth or figuring out the oikodespotes or running a Vedic dasamsa varga chart, it's the technical approaches that differentiate the tradition, not what we apply them to.  That is the distinction.  Wake me up when you stop shaking a rattle at the smallpox victim.  NaySay 15:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Relocational Astrology" - This actually could maybe be legitimately argued to be a new branch of horoscopic astrology, but I still think that it is more of a modern technique or application instead of an entire new branch, but I'm open for discussion.
 * "Historical analysis astrology" and "Mundane astrology" are the same thing, and they are listed, oddly, under Mundane astrology in the Branches section.

Buy a dictionary. "Historical" usually implies human events. "Mundane" means of the earth (natural events): ie, storms, diseases, droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, locust hoards, tsunamis, earthquake storms, volcanic eruptions. StarHeart 08:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Calm down there Andy.  Your profound grasp of this field and your exquisite way with words is overwhelming the rest of us who aren't as gifted, or as charming as you.  Can you please bring it down just a notch for the rest of us?  --Chris Brennan 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Chart rectification" isn't a branch or a tradition. It is just something that is done with natal charts, so it is a technique or an application of natal astrology.


 * Anything else? --Chris Brennan 07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, good point about psychological astrology--I mean that it eschewed divination, which does set it apart in a very distinct way. People still get the heebs when you say your are using astrology to "tell fortunes."  It's an unfortunate way in which the scientific bias has made an incursion in some modern techniques.  I think the point about technique is also valid; whatever people think is reasonable is ok with me.  Also I didn't know about this European movement for a "new" Hamburg School, so chalk that up to ignorance and put it back in.  Maybe a note?


 * C'mon, Andrew, we can disagree, can't we? I still feel that all the categories you mention are applications of modern astrological technique, treated later in the article.  NaySay 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Main image
I would like to get some submissions for a different main image for the article. I don't really like the current one very much, and it doesn't seem like anyone else is that into it either. So I was thinking that maybe we could get some submissions and then vote to keep the current image or replace it with a new one. I will start this off with my submission. What do you guys think?

--Chris Brennan 23:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it Chris - but I doubt if anyone would mind at all if you changed it. MayoPaul5 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Superstition
64.*, can you kindly explain how it is not a superstition? Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most astrologers are sick of explaining, because "scientists" don't investigate it sufficiently. A good analogy is to say an astrology chart is like a complete symphony, but "scientific" experiments invariably isolate a single note--let's say middle C--and then state that since Mozart wrote a violin concerto in "C" and Bill Clinton played a saxophone solo in "C" when jamming with the band on Saturday Night Live, the two performances should be indistinguishable from each other. There's always more to any astrology chart than an experiment can isolate--there is absolutely no way to have a proper "control group" in astrology, for example, because no two charts are ever alike. I'm sorry that reductionistic science hits so many dead ends trying to draw boundaries around the infinite expanses of astrology, but its failure to do so doesn't automatically mean astrology is a superstition. Doovinator 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Additioanlly astrology can be used to help understand a person, each persons astrology chart helps to explain who they are and why they are that way.


 * It could well be a superstition JoshuaZ. I'm surprised you care one way or the other! Reading this page I'm beginning to get the impression there are some scientific types around that feel threatened by the very existence of astrology as a living entity, let alone by its success in the eyes of the general public. MayoPaul5 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that many pseudosciences and superstitions claim that the scientists are ignoring/supressing their work? So please explain how astrology is any different. All you have said above is that in your view astrology is non-falsifiable. JoshuaZ 14:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know that JoshuaZ! But then, I can't honestly claim I've ever been interested in either pseudoscience or superstition or know anything about them; only astrology. I've never heard of any astrologers claiming that science tries to suppress their work (which doesn't mean there aren't any, of course). Scientists would have a hard time if they did ever try any such suppression - they'd be pissing in the wind. Look at that ridiculous episode with the 176 Nobel prize winners who said astrology was rubbish, by their authority and great knowledge of the subject. 66 percent of the public read their horoscope that day, same as the day before and the day after! Luckily for astrologers, the public has enough sense to ask scientists about science, astrologers about astrology. You're a very polite person JoshuaZ; I like that. MayoPaul5 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Doov, you're musical analogy reminded me of Richard Dawkins' comment (he's a "scientist"): "Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles." Sorry to be mean-spirited, but astrology has actually been well investigated—consistently, across-the-board, there is no evidence of its validity. From the Astronomical Society of the Pacific: "Perhaps the best known field of astronomical pseudo-science is the ancient idea that the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment we are born somehow affects our subsequent personality, career, or love-life...However, astrology is also the field in which the largest number of scientific tests have been performed and the evidence clearly demonstrates that astrological connections are no more than wishful thinking."  You'll find a lengthy list of books, articles and web-sites debunking it there. Marskell 14:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This Dawkins article that you cite is just him railing on about "sun sign astrology". Although I'm not necessarily agreeing with Doovinator, the type of strawman argument presented in this article kind cheapens the claim that the subject has been 'investigated—consistently, across-the-board' you have to admit.  Here is another article to add to that list which was written by one of the cofounders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal for a bit of a description as to the nature of some of these consistent, across the board investigations. --Chris Brennan 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I certainly don't agree with every loony passing him or herself off as an astrologer, nor pay much attention to the newspaper columns, but the basic tenets of astrology are incredibly complex, and can't be "thoroughly" investigated in less than 20 or 30 years. Just the 3 most important points in a natal chart alone--the positions of the sun, moon and rising sign--can be combined in 1728 ways, not even counting the 30 degree span of each sign. After that there are still the positions of the eight other planets, each in one of twelve signs of 30 degrees each, and each of these in one of twelve locations in the night (or daytime) sky, these locations changing constantly with the time of day and the longitude and latitude of an event. I have yet to see a "scientific" study where anyone has even bothered to do the math, much less "investigate" more than a microscopic fraction of these possible combinations. Doovinator 05:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I must say I take "20 or 30 years" as a further retreat into non-falsifiability. Not only can you not disprove this because it's not subject to disproof, you can't disprove this because it will take too long. Why is the onus on the disprovers to begin with, and not, as the scientific method dictates, on those putting forth the hypothesis that astrology has merit? One wouldn't waste a career disproving the theory that the Earth rests on the back of a turtle unless someone else has come forward with falsifiable information that such a turtle actually exists. Marskell 09:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, if the experiment takes 20 or 30 years and you don't care to bother with it, that's too bad, but at least you know one very important thing about your life. You're not patient enough to be a scientist. See pitch drop experiment. It takes as long as it takes, that's how the scientific method works. Sorry about your career. Doovinator 14:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I used the third not the first person you might have noticed. Cheers, Marskell 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's not my career either, though I have picked up pocket change from time to time. There are lots of bad astrologers, but there are lots of bad "scientists" too.Doovinator 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

...proof...? Most people are adamant that there is such a thing as "love", and they like it a lot when they believe they have experienced it. However, I don't know of any "scientific" proof that love exists - and if there were any, like most people I wouldn't bother to read it. Our personal experience of love is all that matters to us. Similarly with astrology, there is (and probably can be) no "scientific proof" that it works, but there is an enduring interest (indeed fascination) in the subject by many, many more people than are even remotely interested in science. That's democracy for you. Personally I think it's a great shame that it's such an uphill struggle to get people interested in science - I for one would be interested to know more about science, and deeply regret the closure of so many university science courses through lack of demand. It would help if there were any astrological proof that science is worthwhile, as people would actually read that. It would also help if ordinary people knew for sure that science was helping the world to be a better, safer place and not causing everything worth having (like clean air to breathe for example) to be destroyed. I would say to the scientists who put urine in tobacco to make it more addictive and phosphorus in fire-bombs so that victims still burn when they jump into the village pond: clean up your own act, then come and criticise harmless things like astrology (which has never killed or maimed anybody). MayoPaul5 09:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jefffire 09:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Jefffire, you're right - and therefore you can comment freely on my points rather than just being airily dismissive? This is, after all, the talk page?  Ok, I was too heavy, but the points are valid. Who cares if astrology's a superstition or otherwise? People LIKE it, that's what matters. It's fun; it's interesting; it's intriguing to those who actually study it with an open mind. MayoPaul5 11:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MayoPaul, I suppose this is why so many consumer products are labeled "astrologically proven" rather than "scientifically proven." Those advertisers with all thier market research really know what they're doing when they cite astrology rather than science.


 * Ah! You got me there man! My little joke fell as flat as a pancake in the face of your perceptive irony! MayoPaul5 19:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Blech. The fact is the overwhelming majority of people believe in science because it demonstrably works. A small minority believe in astrology. Mystylplx 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh, sure. You'll believe what you want to, same as everyone else. MayoPaul5 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevent. Getting up on a soapbox to rail against 'scientists' is not what wikipedia is about. None of the scientist I know have ever made white phosphorus or urinated on a cigarette. Most are engaged in trying to save the clean air you accuse them of trying to destroy. If you have a valid point to make then do so, but rants like yours above are not helpful. Jefffire 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant Jefffire. Getting up on a soapbox to try to bolster science's popularity in an article on astrology is not helpful, and is not what Wikipedia is all about. Your personal friendships are irrelevant, and you cannot scientifically disprove there are such scientists simply by saying you have never met them. I've got an idea: how about actually discussing the astrological arguments this page is supposed to be about - and leave science to the more than adequate provision of science pages? Then we can be friends. MayoPaul5 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Get off your high horse. This is a superstition until proven otherwise. Jefffire 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * High horse??? Pot calls the kettle black! How often do you have to be told Jefffire? I don't care whether it is a superstition or not - call it a pile of poo if you want. The opinion of debunkers on astrology has as little interest to astrologers (read: none) as the opinion of astrologers on debunking (which is that it is a stupid waste of time and effort, for the record) has for debunkers. MayoPaul5 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you don't care, but our readers do. And we will report. Jefffire 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Report?? So I'm up in front of the headmaster now, am I? For having an opinion that differs from yours, I suppose. Useful refuge for people with no astrological arguments to present, though. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know a thing about astrology, Jeffire. If so, you don't belong on this page. If I'm wrong, let's hear your first one... MayoPaul5 20:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Report to our readers I mean, don't be so paranoid. Do you have a useful suggestion for the article or are you just here to rant? Jefffire 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you meant Jeffire - I'm just winding you up - it's too easy. That's exactly what I was asking you Jefffire - have you got anything useful to say or are you just here to do pseudo-scientific rants - on an astrology page? (can't call it scientific, as you haven't showed us any logic, method or substance yet). MayoPaul5 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He's just trolling Jefffire 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Jefffire lectures me on being civil - but feels free to hand out whatever insults he likes! Tut-tut. Where I come from that is called sheer hypocrisy Jefffire. If you can't think of anything sensible, logical, civil or (dare I say?) astrological to say, you might be better employed in some other area of endeavour. So run away like a good boy. When you grow up, come back and talk and I'll introduce you to the delights, mysteries and sheer fascination of astrology. MayoPaul5 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When you say, "I know what you meant Jeffire - I'm just winding you up - it's too easy." that's pretty much an out and out admission to trolling. Mystylplx 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, Mystylplx, I appreciate that and will try not to do it again. In return, I hope Jefffire will also leave off trolling me. A comment he left on my user page has raised my hopes that he is indeed now prepared to be more reasonable. MayoPaul5 17:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now had time to look up the expression: Troll. The guidelines state that the "...characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way...In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views, or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling". As I definitely had no such intention, and in the context of this subheading I am indeed an outsider (an astrologer in a community apparently dominated by debunkers) I think the accusation is mistakenly made, perhaps even disingenuous. If I am accused of laying flamebait I might have to accept and will try to avoid it in future, but trolling? Not in my opinion. Therefore I ask Jefffire to reconsider his accusation and downgrade it to something more justifiable. If he decides to leave his accusation as it stands (please say why), perhaps he could at least remove the illustration?


 * On another point, I really detest the debunking techniques being applied to this page, which is why I made certain flamebait comments out of exasperation. Notably, ignoring genuine substance in a comment and picking on some small point to criticise despite its irrelevance to the essential content of the comment. It is so deceitful. It may be acceptable when you are just with your buddies, all ho-ho-ing about how stupid astrology is, but once you are out of that cosy context and in the real world you really have to address the issues and leave the tight-lipped prejudice behind - or be dismissed as lightweight, time-wasters, or worse. Once again, I make the plea: can we please begin to discuss something of substance astrologically? MayoPaul5 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to business then. Please provide some information on astrology, but don't expect us to accept this belief without proof. Jefffire 12:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I know you don't read a word I write - I suspected it before. I don't recommend anyone to believe in astrology, so why would I ask you to? MayoPaul5 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for the article? Jefffire 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go again Jefffire - rather than answer my question or refute my assertion, you do your little conjuring trick and change the subject. Not impressed, terribly disappointed in fact. MayoPaul5 16:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take that as a 'no' then? Jefffire 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not I have any edits to make is none of your business. You still have not downgraded the "trolling" accusation, or said why not, or removed the illustration, or tackled any of the points for discussion I have raised so far. So I can only assume that whatever I say, you will always try to divert the subject to your own safe ground; therefore I suppose it was pointless me offering to discuss anything at all with you, though my intention was to be of use. We all live in our own little world, you and I included. I think it would be best all round if I leave you to the safe little reality you have created for yourself on this website. Recent events (that you and I both know about) show that you and your mates have got it quite well sewn up - I'll give you that. MayoPaul5 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that we did not censor away your page, nor astrology - the vote page and the discussion is filled with comments about wanting to be shown and we are merely asking you to move your personal comments to you userpage. We are willing to hear your evidence on these matters, whether notability or astrology. That said, I do not really know your discussion is about. How about starting over, where did you disagree to begin with (regarding the article)? Lundse 19:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually trust you Lundse (instinctively, if that's not a dirty word), and respect your opinion as well as your objectivity, which is why I am happy to have my stuff deleted if you personally think that's the best thing (i.e. not moved, thanks all the same). Although I'm wondering why you just used the word "we" when I've been assured there is no collaborative action, I'll let that pass. The dispute began when Jefffire labelled me a troll, which, having read the guidelines on the subject, does not appear to me to be a justifiable accusation. He also used debunking techniques on me, which I detest and loathe. Logically, if debunkers had any kind of case they would not need to use deceptive methods in their arguments. I realise deception is a part of nature, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. That's the dispute - easily solved, I think, with a corrective action from Jefffire. MayoPaul5 12:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Need for specialist astrologers
Now a days we find that most of astrologers worldwide intend to show that they are specialist in different branches of astrology, & also guide the aspirants. The debate is whether their claims can have some basis.

Vedic astrology has the richest literature covered in over 400,000 aphorisms, gifted by the Sages & Acharyas in the last over 5 millenniums. It has three main branches viz, astronomy (Siddhanta), Samhitas (dealing with mundane, meteorology, omens & portents, constructional matters, electional astrology etc.) & Predictive (Hora) astrology. The predictive astrology has various branches such as Horoscopy (Jaataki), Electional (Muhurt) astrology, Annual (Tajik) horoscopy, Horary (Prashna) astrology, Female (Streejaataki) horoscopy, Recconstructional (Nashtajaatakam) astrology, Jaimini Sutras (a special system of prediction), Astro - Palmistry (Graha- Samudriki), Remedial astrology etc. etc. But none of the exponents blessed us with treatises on more than one subject. The only except is the great Acharya Varaha Mihir – who gifted us excellent treatises on the three said branches.

Some of the exponents have opined that they have learnt this subject not only in this birth but is the outcome of their Karmas & study in their last births also. It is impossible for human being to learn & master one branch of this futurity science in one birth.

When none on the Hindu exponents have dared to touch more than one subject of Hindu astrology, it is now thought possible by modern astrologers to claim specialization in more than one branch of astrology.

Further when we have now specialist in the field of each branch of the knowledge like engineering, science, medicine, law, economics … ; how come that we have not felt the need for specialist astrologers in specific branch of astrology, & have been accepting astrologers capable to guide aspirants in more than one of its branches.

To cite an example, one may find astrologers generally engaged in predictive astrology; venturing to render guidance in electional branch, but when he would be asked as to how many books he has read on the subject or rather he possesses in his library; the answer shall be obvious.

One may excuse an astrologer claiming specialisation in “Remedial Astrology” if the results do not come, consoling oneself that it may be effect of his Karmas in this & last birth. But how come you can excuse an astrologer who has rendered guidance to an aspirant, who does not have even a single book on electional astrology in his library.

We all understand limitations of knowledge in any field, but that does not authorize one to claim master of different fields, especially in astrology.

--shridharvk, 2, March 2006 (UTC)

''It is not surprising that there are no comments / discussions on this topic for the last one month. Astrologers shun, rather fear to talk on this topic for the reasons best known to them.

I invite astrologers to have frank discussion on this topic''.

--shridharvk, 4, April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
=Important Astrologers: John Addey, Nicholas Campion, Charles Carter, Reinhold Ebertin, Charles Emerson, Martin Goldsmith, Liz Greene, Robert Hand, Charles Jayne, J. Lee Lehman, Jim Lewis, William Lilly, Bill Meridian, Neil Michelsen, Michael Munkasey, Richard Nolles, Maritha Pottenger, Lois Rodden, Dane Rudhyar, Noel Tyl, Alfred Witte, Karen Hamaker-Zondag.

Less important Astrologers: Jefferson Anderson, Geoffrey Cornelius, Gary Duncan, Richard Idemon, Donald Lockwood, Mantreswara, Grace Morris, Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, Parasara, Marc Penfield, Martin Schulman, V K Shridhar, Basil Vaerlen, Varahamihira, Mary Vohryzek==

I keep attempting to put something of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's contributions to Astrology on this page and they keep getting deleted. Who is controlling this page? PNB's works, "The Magical Carousel" and "The Gnostic Circle" are not minor offerings to the Astrological community. Please consider not policing the further reading section and let the art of astrology be more deeply explored than the offerings by Robert Hand. I have also attempted to put in a section called Astrology and the Enneagram with reference to the Gnostic Circle (and an image). Both the reference and the image were deleted. Again why erase this valid information about the study of astrology. This woman gives evidence of Western Astrology in the Rig Veda, I think I put in a section about that too, which was deleted. Just because mainstream astrology doesn't see these things as supporting their profession, is that reason to delete the information. People with gravitate towards certain astrological tendencies, but why limit the valid offerings. Any tips on creating a section that could account for some kind of progressive, new looks at astrology ... that won't get deleted by the astrology page police? Saberlotus 23:44, 4 March 2006


 * Although I'm not the one that has been deleting your stuff for the most part, it seems that most of the stuff that you keep adding is just advertisements for your particular type of western astrology. The issue with this is that there are hundreds of minor types of western astrology, not to mention other traditions, and there is no reason to give each one of them a prominent display on the main astrology article no matter how good some people think that they may be.  There are size restrictions on wikipedia articles after all, so only the most widespread and influential traditions of astrology should have sections.  That doesn't stop you from working on the specific article pertaining to that school though.  Thats my take on the issue at least.  --Chris Brennan 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the respectful feedback. The thing is, it is not a FORM of Western Astrology or Vedic ... It is straight up Astrology ... like the heading of the Wiki page. She writes about issues important to the whole of Astrology, such as noting that the classic Fixed Signs of the Zodiac are blatantly refered to in the Rig Veda as steps of the PRESERVER, Vishnu, which means that the History of Astrology, as believed by most and suggested as fact on this Wiki page, is false. The mention of the Zodiac in the Vedas suggests that the Zodiac (like our 9/0 number system) came from India, rather than being imported there from the Babylonians. So these are important issues the Astrology Community should have access to and discuss as sentient beings, not as desparate people trying to defend our mental grasp of these things, void from any direct or REAL knowledge. PNB presents Astrology in terms of an Evolution of Consciousness ... and to say that is some aberant intension of Astrological Study is shooting astrology in the foot or rather in the heart. "The Magical Carousel"(1978) explains the astrological signs and zodiac in terms of a whole cycle of movement in Time. Her work not somethink differnt than Astrology, it is just fundamental Knowledge about Astrology and the Zodiac that was truely lost in the Dark Ages. And whoever keeps deleting this stuff seems to like it that way. Such is the way it goes. The Troglodite Mind has the stage, and for some limite period of time, it succeed in obstructing the true vision of the whole... anyway for anyone truly interested in Astrology, the above mentioned book is a classic.Saberlotus

I'm sure Tibetan Astrology, Mayan Astrology, Nine-Star-Key Astrology, Celtic Astrology, & American Indian Astrology are all more valid then your heroine's marketing gimmicks. While we're promoting our favorite Astrologers, let me endorse: Jefferson Anderson, Nicholas Campion, Reinhold Ebertin, Martin Goldsmith, Liz Greene, Robert Hand, Richard Idemon, Donald Lockwood, Bill Meridian, Michael Munkasey, Richard Nolles, Marc Penfield, Maritha Pottenger, Lois Rodden, Martin Schulman, Noel Tyl, Basil Vaerlen, Mary Vohryzek, & Karen Hamaker-Zondag. StarHeart 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be quite the shmuck to make the above comment ... kind of poisonous ... anyway If you haven't seriously read her work then, why bother to make a dig at it, the author or at me for wanting to put forth some GREAT information. If you do ever read her work "The Magical Carousel" and still are SURE its a gimmick, or NOT useful and extremely important to the study of astrology as a whole, that would be truly fascinating. I am curious if someone could read that offering and be so oblivious. Saberlotus

I have just added the "Astrology in the Rig Veda" section ... This is not something Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet made up, it is not someone's interpretation, it is not a gimmick, she had identified an obvious reference and correspondence of the Zodiac in the Rig Veda, which raises important issues to all Astrologers, Western and Vedic alike. So lets see what happens to edit... Saberlotus


 * I support Chris Brennan above. This is too specialised for this much space in the main Astrology article. Move it to the article on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and at most a one line reference here or a bit more in history of astrology. Also please keep discussion civil see Etiquette and Civility. Lumos3 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the sections added by Saberlotus because the evidence for the claim is totally lacking, and it relies entirely on stretching the interpretation of a couple of terms in order to make its implausible case. I would also like to note that the argument is unsupported by any contemporary scholarship in the field.  Surely if references to astrology were so prevalent in the Rig Veda, then they would have been pointed out and acknowledged by more scholars than just one woman who wrote a few books a couple of decades ago?  I'm not trying to suppress any important information here, and I certainly think that this deserves its own article in order to represent this woman's argument, but the main astrology article is not the place.  --Chris Brennan 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about allowing ONE sentence in the history of astrology subtitle that makes reference to the fact that their are alternative theories of the history of astrology. One sentence that can give people the information that it is possible that astrology originated in India and later migrated to the Babylonians. Where is there room in this forum, on the Astrology page for some fresh information, new insights into the art of astrology? THere is none and many of you seems strangely protective of that. Saberlotus


 * Certain forms of astrology did come from India, like the Nakshatras and Horary astrology.  I don't have any problem with that at all.  Why would I?  Its just that there is no evidence that the type of astrology that the Babylonians practiced, or Horoscopic astrology originated in India.  Why are you so strangely agressive about making sure that the world thinks that it did?  --Chris Brennan 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am always amazed at this claim, since the names of all the Sanskrit signs are Babylonian cognates. Wouldn't it be the other way around if the material came from India?  Also, Chris, I didn't know anyone thought horary came from India?  Did it?  It's clearly well-established when we first see it in Dorotheus.  NaySay 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I had been meaning to talk to you about that. I'm working on a paper right now where I'm going to show definitively that horary in fact wasn't in Dorotheus, and that the 5 sections which refer to horary in the English translation of the Arabic translation of the Pahlavi translation, are in fact interpolations.  Pingree always said that horary was invented in India and that it first appears in the Yavanajataka, but from what I can tell, he never went into too much detail as to why he was discounting Dorotheus.  I'm confident that I can show why he took this stance and settle this issue once and for all.  I will let you know when I have finished the paper.  --Chris Brennan 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. Please be sure you show it to me.  Greatly interested.  NaySay 20:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's Applied Cosmology

I would like to add my name to the call for more information concerning the foundations of Astrology. In my opinion, Astrology has degenerated to the point that it is virtually unrecognizable as the high art that was practiced in ancient times. In support of the fact that I am not alone in this view, I came across a statement posted in the introduction to project Hindsite. It read:


 * "Astrology was once the Queen of the Sciences. just look at how we have fallen in the world! During the last four hundred years, physics came out of nowhere and made great strides. Meanwhile, astrology not only ceased to cultivate but completely lost touch with its own theoretical roots. The real problem: THE ASTROLOGY OF TODAY LACKS ANY COHERENT THEORETICAL BASIS. Unlike the physicists, we cannot give a good account of ourselves. What it really needs is a GLORIOUS RESTORATION."

It is my opinion that in order to understand the true essence of astrology, it must be seen in the context of its deepest spiritual truths which may be traced back to the Rig Veda. In that ancient Vedic civilization science and astrology were one. The sage was the scientist, the astrologer, and the priest. He possessed an enlightened understanding that the Absolute created the universe in such a way that its very structure was designed to reflect the highest spiritual truth. It contained the mystery of a sacred and eternal order, the realization of which was the common matrix for an organization of all human knowledge. Present day astrology has lost these ancient origins and has become nothing more than a tool of the Ego concerned with the mundane affairs of the individual. In its present debilitated state it can make more or less accurate predictions but cannot provide any sense of meaning or purpose associated with its prognostications. If Astrology is ever to recover its respect and rightful place as science of the Cosmic Truth bridging the spiritual and material worlds, we must be willing to abandon astrological dogma of whatever stripe and return to the immediate lived experience as the source of our knowledge. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's work provides the foundation for this and takes us into an APPLIED COSMOLOGY which contains the seeds of a unique synthesis which promises to open the way for not only a new and meaningful astrological paradigm, but a new and revolutionary advances in both science and spirituality. R.E. Wilkinson/ Aeon Group


 * Dear Mr. or Ms. Wilkinson: I do agree with your sentiments.  The difficulty between us is that I think the Rig Veda claims are so very weak; there's no support for them.  And the subtraction of meaning from Astrology that you feel so deeply, and with which I sincerely concur, could as easily be trace to the point when Plato was removed--well, when the scientific and religious props were removed--from astrology.  Spun off by itself it looks quite pathetic in its present state.  But one further difference:  like it or not, astrology IS a very materialist, earthbound art.  It was meant to be.  Why would anyone look at their stars for their own personal spiritual revelation?  Where was anything like that to be found in the ancient art?  There's very little of it.  Astrology is concerned with this life, with life itself. NaySay 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the section title. Guys, do we really need a revert war over the title of a section on the talk page? I think WP:CHILL may be highly relevant. JoshuaZ 05:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was just trying to put it back to the original heading because he's only trying to be a jerk to this lady. But thats fine, I'll leave it.  --Chris Brennan 09:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this Discussion. Cling to the Standard Astrological rap as you will. Whoever the jerk is, Good Luck in Your studies and with your animosity. If any of you want to chew more on your refusal to admit PNBinto the "illustrious" Important Astrologers category, I have been inspired by this CRAPPY discussion to start a "Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Controversies" web-forum to welcome criticisms and controversies around her work. It is clear WIKIPEDIA is not the place for such discussions. I will post a link to the PNB Controversies forum when it is up, for anyone interested in making a serious critique of PNB's contributions to and claims regarding the increasingly sickly art of astrology. Please no nasty rants based on no actual knowledge of what PNB presents. Mature criticism and questions will be welcome. I apologize for the attempt at sharing what I've found to be crucial to understanding astrology... and disturbing the peace of your belief system. Mea Culpa ... Namaste. [User:Saberlotus]

Seven Liberal Arts and Astrology
Dante's associations do not appear to be correct, according to this link. Here are my suggestions. StarHeart 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 

StarHeart 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the Moon regards Writing
 * Mercury may be compared to Dialectics
 * Venus may be compared to Music
 * the Sun may be compared to pop culture
 * Mars may be compared to Athletics
 * Jupiter may be compared to Business & Politics
 * Saturn may be compared to Research
 * Uranus may be compared to Astrology
 * Neptune may be compared to Fine Arts
 * Pluto may be compared to manipulating the masses

Please don't edit/change other peoples posts. Originally I wrote:

Dantes associations do not appear to be correct, according to this link. 


 * the Moon resembles Grammar
 * Mercury may be compared to Dialectics
 * Venus may be compared to Rhetoric
 * the Sun may be compared to Arithmetic
 * Mars may be compared to music
 * Jupiter may be compared to Geometry
 * Saturn may be compared to Astrology

I did not mean to say that they were right or wrong in any objective sense, but that the associations attributed to Dante in the article differ from those found here: |The Convivio, by Dante Alighieri.

^^James^^ 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who changed your post? I am getting really confused here, did someone edit your talk-page post or include other information in the article than what you wrote or what happened? Lundse 07:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * StarHeart changed my post above. Anyways, it's not relevant to the article anymore. ^^James^^ 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And the other claim about the liberal education being "based on" astrology is completely bonkers, unless someone cites this soon I am removing it. Lundse 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I've found you under informed to have a relevant opinion in the Supernatural Project. Again, you prove yourself under-informed regarding the above issue. If you read closely you'll notice in the above, that the Italian author DANTE was cited. It's called literature. Try it some time. Like all those astrological references in Shakespeare and the Bible? Is censoring the truth what makes your day? Is it your psuedo-Christian upbringing why you stick your nose where it doesn't belong? Read Dante, then express a relevant opinion. It's what an educated person would do. StarHeart 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You will refrain from namecalling right now, and keep you edits off my user page (use the my talk page if you must). Otherwise, I will disregard any and all messages from you and making my edits consulting only those capable of having a proper discussion.
 * Regarding the other content of your "post", Dante has nothing to do with whether the liberal arts "were based" or even commonly believed to correspond to planets. His work was, as so so succintly put it, literature and thus may conform to views held back then - he hardly in himself proves that this belief was normal or even existed outside his mind and/or work.
 * And what does "all those astrological references in Shakespeare and the Bible" have to do with the price of eggs? Oh, and if you want, we can compare "books read" or education levels to your hearts content, but please do not presume to know mine better than me.
 * Does anyone else have a problem with me deleting this, can we find a source actually claiming that this view was in vogue back then or is it just based on a literary allegory from Dante? Lundse 06:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, I'm not name calling. There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. It appears your "knowledge" is limited to books (which you brag of reading) rather than experiential. You're NOT making ANY contribution to either the Supernatural or Astrological categories. You're not a sceptic. You're a debunker. Debunkers don't believe in ANYTHING. Prove what you DO know and stay on those topics. StarHeart 07:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not insult the intelligence of the readers of this page - namecalling does not consist of calling people Herbert, it means insulting people and that is what you are doing. Therefore, unless you change your ways, this will be my last response to you. I will, however, point out a few problems in your last post before I leave you.
 * The difference between knowledge and wisdom does not necesarrily mean that having one means one cannot have the other, so I really do not see where that bit of your argument is going. Your presumptions about my knowledge are sad - do you really need to believe all sorts of bad things about my in order to accept thqat I criticize your views? Regarding books, then it was your who seemed to want to compare knowledge of literature, I merely said I was willing to do so - your critique of the inherent silliness of such things realy only relfect on yourself.
 * On another note, I do not think you know the difference between skeptics and debunkers. A skeptic is someone who wants some form of (often stringent) demands on the kind of proofs they will accept before believing something. A debunker is someone who tries to show the silliness of beliefs and proof which they do not believe are good enough. I am a skeptic, I wish I were a debunker but I do not have the time. Neither has to do with what one actually believes, but what is needed for one to believe something. If astrology showed better results than guessing in controlled, double-blind experiments, for instance - many skeptics (myself included) would believe in it, even if they were also "debunkers". Oh, and not believing in anything would be a "absolute skepticism" (a sort of "strawman" philosophical standpoint) or nihilist (mostly reserved for non-belief in moral values).
 * In the future, you should try commenting on peoples arguments or, failing that, at least their posts. You seem only to be able to comment on me and what I know, how wise I am, what I have read and how you see my contributions. This kind of attitude will not get you or your opinions far on wikipedia or anywere (please see WP:Civility and No personal attacks). Lundse 09:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "effect on world culture" section, adding minor sections to it and down-sizing them (and removing the days of the week to its own page, as it was messy and seemed to include mistakes). In this process, I rewrote some sections, including work on the liberal arts thing - I now write that Dante (in line with thinking at the time) set the planets and arts to the same system, not that this was the view at the time. If someone can cite sources saying it was, please do so and revert my edit. Lundse 10:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrology and the days of the week
This section is a dogs breakfast and needs a cleanup sometime.Lumos3 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know. I've been meaning to get to it for some time now.  I never finished reworking the second half of the astrology article.  --Chris Brennan 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the arguemet which I had put up giving reference of Hindu / Vedic / Jyotisha astrology in its defence has disturbed lot of readers. One only learns if has an open mind. Same talk is about Horary astrology, which lot of readers are not ready to accept that it originated exclusively from India. Readers are not agreeing with Chris Brennam on this issue - refer main talk.

Similarly about electional astrology - Western readers find difficult to digest that it originated during Vedic era - 5,000 years back. The treatises even now available on this subject are much more than all the books available in the world put together

How does it matters whether a perticular branch of astrology was originated in a perticular region of the world - the relevant point is, whether present day astrologers are ready to grasp & follow the best information available on the subject, and whether they are ready to develop specialisation in perticular branch of astrology, rather be quack in all the branches - a feet which was never claimed by any astrologer in the past history.

Wikipedia is a forum to divulge the true information, otherwise it would not withstand the test of time. Difficulty is that learneds in Hindu astrology are not contributing to this topic.

--shridharvk, 9 May, 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong on so many levels. Take a look at What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is not based on "truth", it is based on verifiability. If you wish to contribute to a wiki based on "forum" and "truth" then this is the wrong place to do it. Jefffire 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have comments on the matter than merely on the "words". I had placed true information with documentry evidence. What more is needed. If some one has more information then, he is free to place his views with supporting documents. Superiority of one system over the other is a matter of claim, but facts can not be denied.

How one can deny the fact that 5,000 years back written the book titled " Vasist Samhita" had explained the system of adopting weekdays & its application in respect of Hora (24 divisions of daytime)& many other usages in astrology. The book is still available, exclusively on the subject of electional astrology - as per Vedic / Hindu system of astrology. This is to cite an example. Vedic astrology has proven test of time, otherwise its treatises would have extinguished long back.

shridharvk, 10 May, 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. If you want to make edits they have to be verified from reliable sources. "Test of time" is not a reliable source. Jefffire 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Following points are put as factual information:

1) Electional astroloy book is available which was written about 5700 BCE during the Ramayana era - the book titled " Vasist Samhita". The book in Sanskrit language is still available & referred.

2) How the order of seven days of the week were decided has been logically explained in in Vedic astrology treatises. The logic explained therein was described by me. It is not my invention.

3) 24 divisions of daytime - has also been found reference & effective usage in Hindu Electional astrology.

How the same is being copied & followed by Western astrologers with distortion, is not understood. They may explain the source of the information.

If someone more details, same can be furnished.

shridharvk, 19 May, 2006 (UTC)

Effects on world culture
Just seem to be a few flaws in this part of the article. I don't have much interest in the subject, so this is more from a syntactical perspective, I'll stay out the whole astrology debate.

"Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures, along with the English language."

I don't understand why the English language is mentioned. The reference seems to be meaningless, and there doesn't seem to be any sense in including it, as it has nothing to do with astrology. I suggest it should be removed.

"Influenza was so named because doctors once believed it to be caused by unfavorable planetary and stellar influences."

Why is it so named? This seems to have been taken directly from the wikipedia page on 'flu, but the word's root needs to be properly explained if the example is to be used.

"Also, the adjectives... "mercurial" (Mercury), "martial" (Mars), "jovial" (Jupiter/Jove), and "saturnine" (Saturn) are all old words [should this not be 'Latin', rather than the very simplistic 'old words'?] used to describe personal qualities said to resemble or be highly influenced by the astrological characteristics of the planet, some of which are derived from the attributes of the ancient Roman gods they are named after."

This contains two seemingly contradictary statements - and the second statement, that some are derived from the attributes of the Roman gods is correct. The planets are named after the gods, not vice versa, and the descriptions are characteristics of those gods, not the planets.

The entire passage doesn't read properly, yet I feel that this is a part of the article that could be substantially expanded to include much more useful and very interesting material by someone with a knowledge of the history of astrology.


 * I don't know who wrote the above comment, but agree with the general tone of it. Just one point: As the planets were there long before the human concept of "gods", it seems likely that the planets gained their attributes first, later to be ascribed to gods. Does anyone know for sure either way? By the way, the top guy on the history of astrology is probably Dr Nick Campion - perhaps his input could be solicited?  MayoPaul5 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorporate this info...?
This is a definition that might fit well in the article, especially in the beginning; it's from the Universiteit van Amsterdam (a university that offers a M.A. program in "Mysticism and Western Esotercism") so many would consider it 'official' because it comes from a fully valid academic source.

Astrology -- the practice of interpreting and prognosticating events on earth by relating them to the movements and relative positions of the stars and other heavenly bodies. The belief in invisible influences from the stars on terrestrial bodies provided a basis for practices of astral magic. Classical astrology declined around the 6th century but flourished again in Christian culture from the 12th century through the 17th. Within more limited esoteric and occultist contexts, astrology once again became popular from the early 19th century on.

SOURCE: Christopher McIntosh, The Astrologers and their Creed, London 1969; Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology, Suffolk/Rochester 1987; Anthony Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos, Cambridge MA/London 1999; Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie, Berlin/New York 2000.

WEBSITE: http://www.amsterdamhermetica.nl/ -- see the 'Glossary' at the bottom right of this page.

THANKS -- 64.12.116.202 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiablity
I thought we should have a real discussion on this. I think astrology is in some ways falsifiable, but only if forced to be so. The adherents will never make a true falsifiable claim like "a signifigant portion of people born then and then will identify themselves as X more than a random control group", or actually make a number of simple yes/no predictions and ticking off which ones "hit". But one can "force" them to make such statements, by eg. taking all predictions over the last 50 years, selecting the yes/no ones and checking them. True falsification is not going to happen - just like we will (probably) not see a rock floating upwards, we will not see a life or groups of lives that coincide with birthdates so weirdly that astrology is disproven. But unlike the theory of gravity, we are not hearing a claim from astrology that such and such a phenomenon (eg. "an aries becoming the first drag juggler on the moon") is not going to take place according to the theory (like Newton saying rocks will never float up). It is rather the case that we will find no signifigant correlations, ie. that there is no phenomenon at all. I think this should be mentioned in the intro, I am not sure exactly how to put it (also looking to avoid an edit-war here). Lundse 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with most of what you have stated, and I'm glad you brought it up. The problem may be that previous edits have said astrology is or is not falsifiable rather than astrological statements. Originators of the argument that astrology is non-falsifiable, such as Popper, are looking at astrology as a whole entity, as they would biology or another science.  This is to assume right away that something intelligible can be claimed about astrology as a whole without breaking it down into its parts.  There are a number of astrological statements that someone can find in an astrology cookbook that, in isolation, are clearly falsifiable.  The problem is that the practitioner would then, (by being pressed or by considering a rule attached to the statement), clarify additional conditions (in the chart) that modify the claim. Zeusnoos 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would simply say that if you remove "astrological statements" from "astrology" then all you have left are some interesting looking pie charts. Remove the predictions from astrology and what do you have left? Astrology is linked to mythology, (particularly Greek mythology) but the mythology exists independantly of the horoscope.


 * Take gravity as an (already given) example--what causes gravity? Gravitons? Maybe... The curvature of space? No.... that explains the path objects will take intersecting a gravity well, but doesn't explain the pull itself nor why massive objects cause space to curve in the first place. Yet even not knowing exactly why gravity works we can make lots of testable obserations about how it works and those observations are all falsifiable.


 * The predictions astrology makes may not ever be as simple as "a rock will never fall up." But they are testable nonetheless. Astrology makes predictions about groups of people and for those predictions to be valid they at least must be more true for the specified group than for the population as a whole. In a more basic sense astrology predicts that people born at the same time and place (thus sharing the same natal chart) will have more in common with each other than either will with a randomly selected control. In a yet even more basic sense astrology predicts that astrologers will be able to glean useful information about individuals or groups of individuals from reading those natal charts.


 * If any or all of those predictions are proven to be innaccurate then astrology has been falsified. Mystylplx 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Philosophers of science, Popper, Lakatos, Thagard, have all claimed that astrology is (more or less) unfalsifiable. Popper (in an essay "Science and Pseudoscience" ?? forget exact title) used astrology as an example (along with Freudian analysis) of what is unfalsifiable, which is a criterion of pseudo-science. I'm modifying this claim to say that some parts that I call 'astrological statements' are indeed falsifiable. However, the entire gestalt of astrology is typically unfalsifiable because caveats are continually added by astrologers to the statements.  This makes it untestable by any criteria acceptable to both scientist and astrologer. For example, not all astrologers would say that people born at the same time and place share the same traits.  They would, however, draw upon the notion of 'essences' of the planets and say that they persons have the same unchanging essences, with different existential manifestations.  They might say that one person has 'overcome' the negative traits of a configuration while the astrological twin has not.  These positions cloud the possibility of genuine falsifiable experiments and make astrology as a whole appear generally unfalsifiable. Zeusnoos 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The appeal of astrology to the masses are those very falsifiable predictions which people believe in. The majority of astrology is falsifiable. While it may be true that astrologers, if painted into a corner, would always be able to shift thier position untill they could still cast some doubt--were that the case then there would be no more "popular astrology" left. Even the most gullible among us still demands some degree of prediction which actually means something. If astrologers did nothing but the kind of double-talk you are referring to they would be out of jobs. The whole appeal of astrology is it presents a believable image of accurate predictions for groups of people. That part is falsifiable. Take that away from them and, as a practical matter, the whole field vanishes.


 * Having said that I'll add that this is just discussion and I still think the current wording is perfectly acceptable. Mystylplx 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Empirically speaking, I'm not sure predictability (in the strong sense) is the source of mass appeal. Most people know about horoscope columns and read them like an oracle or advice (e.g. 'You should be cautious about stepping on toes of people at work.'). Other than that, people read about character traits of their Sun signs. One's self-identity cannot be reasonable tested unless you use a personality inventory (even that is tricky business for science given how flexible the 'self' is), and sun sign information (I would go so far to say) has even shaped self-identity in many people. Zeusnoos 13:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Those "character traits" of sun signs (and natal charts as a whole) are also predictions. The prediction that people born under a certain sign, or with such-and-such aspects in thier charts, will tend to be... whatever. Those are falsifiable predictions. The predictions astrology makes about personality are no less predictions than the ones they make about future events. Mystylplx 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are making the mistake of assuming all predictive statements are falsifiable. The criterion of falsifiability is tied to the scientific method. How do you devise a legitimate experiment to test whether or not someone 'is' in fact, and not only that there self-conception matches the traits of stubborn [Taurus] (all of the time? some of the time?), or undecisive [Libra], or prideful [Leo]? Trait theory is pretty much out the window in personality psychology anyway, and what natural scientist would touch identity theory? I'm personally with Popper that some theories in psychology are entirely unfalsifiable. Zeusnoos 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to read Poppers essay to be able to comment on that, but as it stands I'm pretty sure psychology isn't listed as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia. But even if we throw out standardized psychological tests it's still possible to test whether a group of tauruses display the charecteristic we call "stubborness" to a greater extent than a random control group would. Mystylplx 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That's quite simply because sun-sign columns have almost nothing to do with astrology, of course. Surely you know that? NaySay 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is a craft that is still in process after 5,000 years. Sorry about gravitons, but the latest theories of physics sez: Goodbye "Gravity", Hello "Attraction". Further advances in the hard sciences do NOT discredit Astrology, but actually lead toward a more relevant explanation as to how it works! Sorry: 1 - What we think of as Greek mythology started in Ethiopia. 2 - No mythology, no chart interpretation. Yes, this is the biggest leap of logic regarding Astrology. We can't explain WHY, but the best explaination we have at the moment is still Carl Jung's connection between "race memory" (the collective unconscious) and our individual dream state. StarHeart 00:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all very nice. If astrology is a "craft" then it should market itself as such. Astrologers could set up boothes at craft fairs and sell pretty colored natal charts for people to hang on thier walls. But as long as astrologers continue to claim to be able to make accurate predictions about individual human beings based on those pretty colored charts then it is falsifiable. That's what it means.... Astrology makes testable predictions--astrology is falsifiable.  Mystylplx 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction as it currently reads seems mostly POV; there is nothing significant that casts doubt on this "science" except for the benign "There is no widely accepted evidence that astrology has a scientific basis." I wonder how many scientists would support a similar statement?  I suspect that we would have a far more definitive statement.


 * I understand editors objectives to present the topic in the most favorable light possible. However, some balance should be possible so that this topic is not presented as a perfectly reliable path to guide one's life.  It is a path for some people, but it certainly is not a reliable way to predict the future.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So to sum up, we can agree that individual predictions/statements of astrology can be falsified (and indeed has been), but that astrologers then retreat into "that statement was not the one I would have made" or "it's more complex than that". Liken this to Poppers view on psychology, it too makes statements that one would say can be falsified, but psychology itself is never allowed to be so. If astrology is falsifiable, then there must be some statements that it (as a whole) claims is true about the outside world - if this statement/prediction then turned out wrong, astrologers (generally) would revolutionize their art or give it up. I do not believe there is any such statement and therefore I do not believe astrology to be falsifiable - but I am all for including a note saying that its adherents make falsifiable claims all the time (however much they would want to distance themselves from them afterwards) and that these can be and are being falsified. Lundse 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sums it up. I missed your comment before posted my response above. Zeusnoos 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about: "There is no widely accepted evidence that astrology as a system has a falsifiable, scientific basis though individual astrological predictions may be subject to disproof. Where it has been tested, astrology has shown a consistent lack of predictive power."


 * Some people are going to have a hard time with the second sentence, but its broadly supportable. Marskell 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Lundse 07:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Mystylplx 09:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Lumos3 10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. The risk now is that someone will try and caveat the caveat ("However, astrologers would argue..."). This should be resisted, as these two sentences are basically the only critical comment in the entire article. Marskell 10:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But what has any of this to do with astrology? Why should we care whether scientists are satisfied that there is enough mention of science in an article on astrology? Not astrologers, surely, who rarely are interested. Not the general public, who would come to this page for information on astrology. Furthermore, you're all avoiding the issue of Gauquelin's work. I don't know why we bother you so much. NaySay 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The general public, who would come to this page for information on astrology," is what essentially matters. And to suggest that readers would have no concern over its scientific merits strikes me as odd in the extreme. It's just the sort of question a disinterested reader would first have. Marskell 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gauquelin's work is covered in the Validity of astrology article. Mystylplx 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason it is necessary to state clearly that Astrology is not a science is because it is the only pursuit which uses the suffix 'ology to describe itself, but which does not use the scientific method. While this may be an historical accident it does tend to mislead the public. Lumos3 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ontology, Theology, Phenomenology, Pneumatology, Etymology (before 19th century), Cosmology (theory not scientific method), Doxology, Patrology, Numerology, some Sociology, some Psychology, Scientology, some Ecology. Sorry to be a wise-ass, but you said 'only pursuit'. Zeusnoos 22:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK remove the word only and replace with "one of the few " . I have a reference book which lists over 500 scientific pursuits ending in 'ology. It is misleading to the public and some astrologers encourage this confusion. It needs early qualification in the article. Lumos3 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the word itself (through no necesarry fault on any practitioners, but probably to the delight of some) makes people think of it as at least related to science. The article should make it clear in the intro that this is a pseudoscience (you can word that differently, if you like, but that is what it comes down to). Lundse 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed also, but please don't label it a pseudoscience if you wish to be accurate. There are no doubt a few astrologers who believe they are practising a science (as it takes all sorts to make a world) but most make no such pretension. It has already been argued elsewhere on Wiki that astrology could accurately be labelled a proto-science or pre-science, as there is ample evidence to back up this suggestion - if labels must be applied at all. Many astrologers are coming round to the suggestion made by Geoffrey Cornelius and others, that it is a system of divination. Still others insist that it is primarily a poetic language akin to Chinese in that each concept is discribed by a symbol or combination of symbols that are open to several or many meanings depending on context. The often-used example is the word "Crisis", which in Chinese is a symbol made up of of other symbols (the one for "problem" and the one for "opportunity"). When astrologers mention the term "solar-eclipse" in an interpretative sense to each other, they are thinking "crisis" in the Chinese, not the English sense, together with all the nuances stemming from this combination. William Lilly, one of the most revered authorities in traditional astrology, described astrology as an art, and the increasing numbers of modern astrologers who practice this form tend to follow his lead. Others label it as an aspect of cosmology; as a technique of healing; or as a tool of sef-knowledge. Not an exhaustive list, but take your pick. MayoPaul5 11:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrology was a protoscience until the advent of astronomy. Nowadays it makes scientific claims of the nature that the state of the stars has a predictive power, but does not back this up with the scientific method. As of such it is a pseudoscience. Jefffire 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I never heard of an astrologer making that precise claim Jefffire - perhaps you could tell me who it was? The majority of Western astrologers don't even consider the stars, let alone their "state", whatever that means. MayoPaul5 11:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Substitute stars for planets or whatever. The point is that this is a field that makes a scientific claim. Jefffire 11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't bother to be precise in your terms, then, Jefffire; it will help you debunk the subject so much more easily. The point is that this is a field that does not make a scientific claim; debunkers do so, on behalf of astrologers. Astrologers (with the noteable exception of Horary Astrology) are taught to "forecast" - not predict. Just like the weather forecast, you don't jump on it just because it is usually wrong, as it is only intended as a guide. And yes, I do agree that the published forecasts of people calling themselves astrologers are usually wrong (i.e. this category includes a percentage [around 20% currently, more in the recent past] of people who have no astrological training or experience, and therefore are frauds). MayoPaul5 12:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just realised I didn't pick up on Jefffire's initial comment: "Astrology was a protoscience until the advent of astronomy". By this kind of high-school logic, for example, prehistory would no longer be described by that term because History succeeded it - clearly a ridiculous assertion. And yes, there were prehistoric peoples living right through history until at least the 20thC, perhaps even still. Better brains than yours and mine, Jefffire, have already argued this point and come to the conclusion I stated and you challenged, that astrology can validly be called a proto-science. MayoPaul5 12:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To forecast is to predict, even if with inaccuracy. A prediction or a forecast is a scientific claim. This claim is not backed up with the scientific meathod, so the field is pseudoscience. Jefffire 16:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll have it your own way, of course, Jefffire, no matter what anyone says. It surprises me though, that you (a pseudo-scientist I can only assume, by how keen you are to promote its claims) so badly want to own astrology (a pseudo-science, you say).
 * Words can morph together in your language, I see, but astrologers make a nice distinction between the two terms "forecast" and "prediction". For example, an accurate forecaster might say "I suggest that Chelsea are likely to do well overall this season". An accurate predictor is more inclined to say: "Chelsea will win this match 2-1 against Spurs" - much more specific, and I would have thought, more testable (by just waiting to see the result - no science needed). If you're still keen, Jefffire, to apply your techniques and practice your methods, there are a few people on the list of astrologers who are (or at least were) doing the second type - I suggest you try to speak to them. Dr David Frawley, for example, and Bernadette Brady (and several hundreds of notable others not on the list). I, for one, would just love to see your pseudo-scientific methods of prediction pitted against their astrological methods of prediction. I would pay good money to see the contest!!! By the way, these people have to be paid of course, so you'll need to get your funding sorted out first. Well, here I am getting drawn in again; clearly just moving to another topic is not going to shake you off Jefffire! Signing off, helpful as always, but would love to speak to someone who can actually talk astrology instead of obsessing about science all the time. Otherwise, I think I won't bother. MayoPaul5 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's just silly. "Forecast" and "predict" are synonyms. Either of your examples could be called 'forecasting' or 'predicting,' and in each case the predictions can be tested for accuracy. If such predictions could be shown to be accurate then astrology would be a science and not a pseudo-science... that's the difference--science demands accurate predictions, astrology just makes a lot of excuses.... Mystylplx 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When astrology and astronomy were combined it was a proto-science. But when the science part (astronomy) split away from the superstition part, astrology became a pseudo-science while astronomy went on to become a full-fledged science. Mystylplx 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! Thanks for that Mystylplx, I didn't realise that is how you guys think, so it's a good job you repeated it yet again. MayoPaul5 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Some people just need to hear things over and over before they get it. It's no problem... Mystylplx 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Huge generalisation there Mystylplx, not to mention anthropomorphism: ("science demands accurate predictions, astrology just makes a lot of excuses???)", which I didn't think people like yourself with scientific leanings indulged in; it's so...unscientific, somehow. The imprecision of your thinking is quite shocking to me. How can you conduct an accurate experiment if you're that woolly? As for the words "forecast" and "prediction"; we make a distinction that, in our silly way, is quite real to us. You don't? Too bad. My Oxford dictionary defines prediction as "prophesy". As in: "And now, here is the weather prophesy for the South" Has a different ring to it, somehow. Now then, I've given you guys something hard to go on - are you going to do the tests or not? No excuses please - apparently it would make you look like an astrologer! MayoPaul5 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been done over and over. There have been over 500 tests of the forecasts made by astrology just since the 1950's. It fails every time. See the Validity of astrology article for a very very brief sampling. It doesn't matter whether you call it "forecasting," "predicting" or even "prophesy" it all amounts to the same thing...


 * As for meteorologists, they are not wrong most of the time. That's why meteorology is a science and astrology is a pseudo-science. Meteorology makes testible predictions and fares much better than chance when those predictions are tested. Astrology makes testible predictions (or "forecasts" if you prefer) and does not fare better than chance when those predictions are tested. Mystylplx 21:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you see, that's where we part company Mystylplx. Weather is a favourite topic for Uk residents, and up my street (and in every other street I've ever lived or stayed) the consensus seems to be: "see what the weather forecast says, then assume the opposite, it's more likely to be right". I guess this gap in perception is why so many people fork out hard cash from their own pocket for astrology, but would not do so for a weather forecast - it has to be provided from taxes or licence fees forcibly extracted from all of us. As for your 500 tests, you'll have a hard job to convince me they weren't all guaranteed to fail from the outset - because all they test is the claims debunkers make about astrology. Conjuring tricks have never interested me. MayoPaul5 07:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is that exact gap between "perception" and reality which is why it's so important to test these things. People tend to only notice the rare occasions when meteorologists are wrong because deep down they expect them to be right every time. People do the opposite with astrology, only noticing the rare occasions when they get it right because deep down they know it's BS. Many many experiments have shown that right around 95% of people will percieve an astrological reading to be accurate regardless of whether the reading is based on their own chart or someone elses. It just doesn't matter...


 * And most of those 500+ tests were conducted by supporters of astrology who were trying to prove its validity. Mystylplx 08:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR Jefffire 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Man of few words, how about this idea: you do the research, write the results up in a learned journal, then it can be quoted? Otherwise, it sounds like a convenient excuse. I'm just trying to help here, but if my ideas are no use, there's nothing I can do. MayoPaul5 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Care to provide funding? Jefffire 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you are having a laugh, Jefffire. Why would I indulge your silly fantasies? You plague me for something concrete to test, then back off into excuses as soon as I do. You and I know perfectly well that you are a true believer - of debunking. Astrologers class debunking as a religion.
 * Well, it's been fun and I'd like to thank you two for being such good sports and putting up with my intrusion into your cosy enclave with reasonably good grace and civility, but now it's time for this rather Chironic person I call "me" to get back to the real world (or perhaps I should say the world of superstition?) and start earning some hard cash from all those forecasts I make (and even some predictions) for individual people. You know, for me astrology is not about forecasting at all; it is about personal growth. The only claim I make (based on experience of what actually happens) is that over a period of a few years, people who come to see me (on average once a year) will become more rounded in their personalities, more settled in their lifestyles and a little happier in themselves; in some cases more accepting of the way things are for them, in other cases more stimulated to change things for the better. That is what I have been given the credit for, over and over again. Playing a role like that in society, even though it may only affect a few thousand people, is a real privilege for me. I'm proud to be able to look back over so many tributes from people who found that what I did for them was truly helpful. In the benighted world we live in, teetering on the brink of disaster thanks mainly to all the wonderful advances of science and technology, I'm really pleased to have eased the paths of so many people. Well, I'm off now; but God-willing I'll try to pop in from time to time just to say hi! MayoPaul5 07:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had to chime in again, here; if for nothing else than to show my colours. First of about prediction and forecasting. This is extremely simple, when you think of it - are the people doing either thing claiming that they are doing better than chance? So when a chemistry student says some liquid will turn blue, a meterologist says it will probably rain tomorrow and a astrologer advices you about a good date to start you new firm, are they claiming to do better than chance? The answer is yes, also in the case of the astrologer; if he was merely guessing, he would be doing essentially nothing, his services would be meaningless to himself and his clients - it is because they all claim to be doing better than chance that we say they are 'predicting', some may disagree with this term - it matters not, what matters is that they are claiming to do better than chance and therefore can be wrong. If their predictions/guesses/forecasts are constantly no better than chance, that means we have no reason to suspect there is anything to their method/science/art/whatever.

And the 'something hard to work on' stuff about prediction meaning prophesy is simply wrong - prediction can mean alot of things, not necesarrily to do with prophesy (I predict the sun will come up tomorrow).

About protoscience, then that is what astrology/astronomy was once, then they became a science and a pseudoscience. That does not mean claiming it never was a proto-science, but claiming it still is really makes no sense. And this has absolutely nothing to do with prehistory, BTW.

And MayoPaul, claiming that science is doing evil and therefore it is good not to be a scientist is pretty sad. Humans making bad decisions is the cause for misery, science is a force that can work for good or bad - your critique is like blaming the shovelmaker that someone whacked someone over the head instead of digging irrigation canals.

And finally on debunkers. You may call the people doing the studies whatever you like, but unless you challenge the data and the conclusions you are only namecalling. There just is not any data set out there which shows astrology doing better than chance, that is not because I am a skeptic, it is just the way things are - if you disagree with this fact, please show me wrong by showing me such a data set. Or make your own and make one million bucks, I guarantee you that will make a change in the astrology article! Lundse 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Get the million dollars here once you have a valid data set. Jefffire 10:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A new study is coming out to be published in May's "Personality and Individual Differences" journal regarding sun signs. It is one of the largest studies of the possible link between human traits and astrology.  It found little, if any, connection between the traditional sun signs of the zodiac and characteristics of individuals.

"The study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is no scientific basis for star signs, such as Aries, Taurus and so on. These signs are based on the place of the sun in relation to the date of birth of the subject.

The researchers, however, leave open the question as to whether other, more detailed and personal forms of astrology hold any validity."

Hartmann, a researcher in the Department of Psychology at Denmark's University of Aarhus, added, "This does not necessarily mean that all astrology is without truth, but only that the independent effect of sun signs is most likely to be irrelevant. As for the weekly horoscope based on mere sun signs, then according to the current scientific standing, there is probably more truth in the comic strips."

These are quotes from an article found at []

Mayo, doing work that aids people is important and needed in this world. However, is a snake-oil salesman helpful because he sold his oil to people who swear they got better from using it? The concepts of placibo and suggestion can have amazing affects on indivdiduals. However, I am still not sure it is better to encourage people to find truth. Now if we can agree on how to do so, let us put that into a bottle and we will accomplish great things. Storm Rider (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to say that I have read and I acknowledge all the above comments. Regrettably I don't have time to give the proper answers such considered statements deserve. As I have learned to value your opinion Lundse, I will just defend myself on one point. You say that I was "claiming that science is doing evil and therefore it is good not to be a scientist", followed by a pejorative statement about the kind of person this makes me. This quote does not reflect what I actually think at all, though in this limited context I evidently inadvertently left you with that impression. What I actually think is that a majority of scientists are engaged on what any reasonable person would describe as worthwhile and laudable projects and do enormous good, and would do more if the funding was available. A minority have undoubtely sold their soul to the devil, as with so many sectors of society (including some astrologers I could name). However, the power of those few scientists to harm the world and its people far outweighs their small proportion in the scientific community. I'm hardly likely to be anti-science when my own father was a scientist/technologist. One of my sons, with my maximum encouragement and support, is also doing very well to date in the same field, working for one of the world's top-50 companies in R&D. So please Lundse, once again I ask you not to read too much into things where the information is simply lacking and has not been shown either way. MayoPaul5 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, explanation heard loud and clear. Your comment just sounded to me like other new age involved people who rail against any and all established source of knowledge - glad you are not one of them and thanks for responding in such a civil manner instead of turning this ugly. Lundse 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarly with StormRider, regrettably just one point picked on to defend myself against your slur. Can you show me any evidence of a "snake-oil salesman" who has these tangible tokens of customers appreciation? (You word is the only evidence I shall ask for). If not, I would appreciate it if you did not liken me in this manner to them (with a reminder about using weasel words as I am alert to the usual tricks of debunkers). Also it would be false to liken me to any kind of salesman anyway, as I never advertise and never ask anyone to consult me. 90% of the people who consult me have heard the actual tape I made for someone they know and were so impressed they wanted theirs done. There is no element whatsoever of salesmanship in what I do. I'm sure we all make assumptions from time to time, but it is something best avoided where possible, I think. MayoPaul5 08:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points all. I can't speak for Storm Rider, but my read is he wasn't directing his "snake-oil" comment specifically at you, rather it was a question offering a possible general analogy regarding astrology as a whole. The fact is that many experiments have shown that 90+ percent of people will rate an astrological reading as accurate or better regardless of whether the reading is based on their own chart or someone elses. This is called the forer effect. Snake oil salesmen, knowingly or otherwise, took advantage of a similar effect called the placebo effect. This is why modern medicines are always tested against placebo to be sure their effectiveness exceeds that of a placebo. Mystylplx 17:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mystylplx, I expect you're right about SR. On the other matter, I have also heard some so-called astrologers and self-styled psychics give readings that are so generalised they could fit anybody or nobody. This is the problem with having an unregulated field where anyone can claim to be an astrologer whether they have any astrological expertise or not. The APAI was set up to start to address this. A similar situation applies in acupuncture, where any medical doctor can practice it legally after just three weeks training, even though all the main colleges of acupuncture (particularly the mother courses in China) insist that full training takes twelve or more arduous years. Astrology is an equivalent discipline and very tough to master, so few people go the whole way. Result: fraud often happens in the name of astrology. I'm not trying to convince you, Mystylplx, of my point of view; it would be nice however, if at least some of you guys could be a bit more tolerant of things you do not yet understand, and allow the possibility that you do not know everything there is to know. MayoPaul5 21:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Annecdotal evidence is just that, annecdotal - there are many good reasons not to include them when building your worldview, I won't reiterate them here. Needless to say, they are also worthless when building an encyclopedia or a scientific theory.
 * What I really wanted to point out was your comment that the skeptics should "allow the possibility that you do not know everything there is to know". This is getting it backwards - a skeptic does not claim that there is no psychic phenomenons or that current science has it all right or encompasses everything. It is the psychics et al. who claim that they know how to make things fly, read thoughts, predict stuff or guide people. They claim to know more than the skeptics, in fact - which is why the burden of proof is on them.
 * If someone could really accelerate plant growth or whatever, why not make the experiment in front of live tv cameras - the media loves that kind of thing and puts even the most ridiculous claims and most failed ideas on primetime lauding them as succes. Something that worked would be even easier to get on tv. Lundse 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you have got me wrong, Lundse. You are a one for reading into things! I was not giving evidence, simply explaining my POV. And my remark about "not knowing everything" is addressed not to skeptics like yourself, who of course have enough humility to realise that we are all limited in our understanding. I was addressing Mystylplx by name - a debunker. These are the ones lacking that humility in my opinion, though of course I'm ready at any time to be shown that an individual debunker is different to the rest.
 * Then you go on to say "If someone could really accelerate plant growth or whatever...etc". This attitude is precisely illustrating my point - too many scientists don't even believe one another's evidence if it conflicts with their ingrained beliefs. Matthew provided conclusive evidence of his abilities. It is available in reports signed by Nobel prizewinning scientists from Cambridge University and elsewhere. You'd have to be arrogant to claim that you could design a tighter series of experiments than those clever people did. In the past Matthew frequently demonstrated his powers on main channel TV around the world. But because you personally didn't see it, it might as well not have happened? The trouble with having so many conjurors and illusionists around is that many of us start to think that everything unusual or unexpected must have been achieved by deceitful means. I know I do. As for reading thoughts, that is no big deal, surely? Even I can do that in a small way, but am certain I could not do it to order - it's one of those things that just happen or not. Native Australians still living in the traditional way say that people who have stuff to hide are the only ones who are NOT able to read thoughts like an open book - like 99 percent of Westerners I would guess; making the "wild" natural-living people the odd ones out in this twisted world. MayoPaul5 21:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not believe your viewpoints on native, this Matthew character or psychics in general is based on experience or proofs. If you do have proofs and citations, please let me know. I do not believe you can read minds, this does not make me narrow-minded or an evil Westerner out of touch with the world, it makes me skeptic with regards to extraordinary claims (which require extraordinary evidence, IMHO). Lundse 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good, Lundse, that you do not just believe - why should you? Most of the troubles in the world started with people being persuaded to believe in something. Always best to find out for yourself. Plenty of stuff about Matthew Manning in the public domain, but if you decline to seek it out (I'm not going to make it easy for you with refs) you'll be able to maintain your present views. One comment: things you seem to regard as extraordinary are ordinary and everyday to me. My "worldview" as you put it earlier, has been developed and was well-formed before you were even born, by events that would (I surmise, from your comments) be unimaginable to you, let alone impossible to credit. It is your worldview that still needs to be formed, and you are quite correctly using caution in forming it. Advising me on how to form mine comes rather too late, and is a bit like "teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs". By the way, I neither said, suggested nor inferred you were a "narrow-minded or an evil Westerner". You are putting words in my mouth. MayoPaul5 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything in the Matthew guy, don't have his last name. But Uri Geller went around 'proving stuff on tv' for a long time and I do not believe in him either (I believe tv airs whatever gets viewers and damn the truth). You would not believe the amount of material on that sort of characters I have sought out, and I have yet to see anything remotely convincing (actually the people talking for something like telepathy does a better job dissuading me than their detractors).
 * About worldviews, then yours may have been formed before mine, I fail to see how that makes it more valid... It does not change a thing about encyclopedias, however, and the fact that we need some sort of citation for these things. And yes, by rehearsing the mythology of some group of natives, you are suggesting that their view might be equally valid - which is suggesting that the reason that I cannot read minds is my own fault for having stuff to hide. You were definitly appealing to the "natives good, civilization bad" sentiments, which I do take offence from and will put into perspective by showing how it is the same as indicting all Westerns as inherently wrong or evil. Lundse 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got to be right about tv, Lundse, for sure. Re Matthew, the briefest search will show you that Matthew Manning (I said his full name in a comment I later shortened, after it had been read) was the subject of reports from:
 * Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, USA,
 * University of California, USA, and
 * London University, UK, for example.
 * These tests produced a large number of scientific reports on his psychic healing ability, and Matthew was able to demonstrate under laboratory conditions his capacity to influence the rate of degradation of human blood cells and enzymes, the death rate of cancer cells, and the remote influencing of a person’s brainwave pattern. If those reports don't satisfy you, nothing will. I've seen him work. In 1980 he cured my mother-in-law of 90% deafness in ten minutes - a condition she had since she was four. In 20 mins he also cured my wife of a tendency to miscarry. After thirteen years of upsetting miscarriages she was able to bring a child to full term for the first time. That child is the same age as you, Lundse. I watched MM solidly for a month (and occasionally over six years) doing dozens of very remarkable cures. He himself makes no claim to cure anyone.
 * Correction: I did not say my worldview was more valid than yours - once again, you misrepresent me. I don't believe it, so why would I say it? About encyclopedias: of course what you say is correct. As for the rest of your comment all I can suggest is: "if the cap fits, wear it. Otherwise discard it". As a Westerner through and through, does it seem likely that I am totally down on all Westeners? You make far too many assumptions and unjustifiable extrapolations for my liking, Lundse - and your last comment sounded a bit hysterical. MayoPaul5 15:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence and insufficiently rigorous trials are worthless here. Jefffire 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "insufficiently rigorous trials"??? So Jefffire can design and conduct those trials better that those Nobel prizewinners? Sheer arrogance, I suspect. MayoPaul5 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my dears, we seem to have drifted well off the topic heading (falsifiability) and, of course, proved nothing either way. However, it has served to show me how totally dominated this "astrology" talk page is by debunkers who (thus far) have shown considerable ignorance of the subject. Yes I freely acknowledge the important role skeptics could play in getting a great many astrologers (me included, of course) to "tighten up our act" and pay attention to the different ways scientists and pseudo-scientists might have in looking at the subject. But this has to be done from a position of knowledge of the subject on their part, not from ignorance, surely? MayoPaul5 15:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox Paul. Please limit yourself to discussing the article. Jefffire 15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Astrologers are often not very good at being limited to anything Jefffire, but if you talk some astrology I think you'll find my response will be entirely astrological. MayoPaul5 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

MayoPaul, I resent you calling me hysterical and that you continue to draw out the age difference as important. If you say you are not "down on Westerners", thats good - your comments on how we might all be corrupted to the point of loosing out PSI abilities got me a bit confused...

You anecdotal evidence does not belong here, it will convince noone and it does smack of a soapbox as Jeffire pointed out. Noone here is claiming to do better than nobel prize winners, but if they conducted studies on MM, I would like to know the results of those studies - I can only find the titles via. google (2 neutral, 1 saying there was no "confirmation"). Whatever ignorance we skeptics have about astrology it does not change the one fact you and every other astrologer I have met here has failed to addres: we need some sort of proof/citation in order to claim there is any good reason to believe astrology is more than superstition. One does not need to be an astrologer to know this, contrarily, it seems one cannot quite accept it if one is.

Your idea of some cabal of skeptics driving people of and your claims that astrologers are gentler and better people here on WP is simply wrong. Go to list of astrologers, a bunch of them (especially in the history) are wikipedians who added themselves - I am sure you can drum up some support there. Or go to the paranormal wikiproject, most seem to be believers in almost anything. Lundse 07:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had integrity, you would note that a lot of us who added our own names to the List of Astrologers has been into the topic for decades, we have reputations which other noted Astrologers know us and, in my case, I've added the names of many prominent Astrologers who I've known for 25-35 years. You're a pretentious debunker who obsessively pretends that you know what you're talking about. Andrew Homer 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. MayoPaul - meet my previous experience with astrologers (again, I am sorry for the presumptions I started out communicating with you on, I hope you see were I was inspired). Note that he also uses the "don't know what..." argument, which is completely moot as the points I try to make has little to do with astrology itself but with a view on science and astrologys place in such worldviews. Lundse 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have links to nowhere?
As it is, the "See Also" section is a wide collection of favorite hobbyhorses--the lobbyists' lobby. And that's quite appropriate. But it's very long--so long that its impact is minimalized. So why include three links that go nowhere? There are three red links with no corresponding pages. They are Harmonic chart, Midpoint (astrology) and Environmental cosmology (astrology and social sciences). I propose we delete these. If someone wanted articles on these topic, I think one should be be bold and write them before creating a link to an article that doesn't exist. The midpoint link can be deleted because there is already a link to Uranian astrology which appears to have the only explanation of midpoints in astrology in Wiki anyway. I'd love to write an article on harmonic charts sometime in the future, but it's a research project for me; I've only got an educated practitioner's knowledge of the subject. In any case, it's not in Wiki and the link should go. I don't know what the environmental link is about, but I think it's fair to apply the same "no ticket, no wash" criterion to it. Any comments? NaySay 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rome wasn't built in a day. Where's the fire requiring immediately responding to your arbitary time table? When I write my movie scripts, I add layers at different times when I see where I can make an improvement - as does a painter. Those of you continually harrassing in the Astrology article, the Supernatural Projection, the Police State article, and even my own Andrew Homer article have yet to prove your knowledge on anything other than knowing how to use a keyboard and knowing how to censor. StarHeart 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Categories exist for this exact reason. The See Also here should be radically shortened. Marskell 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No one said the topics couldn't be included (even environmental whatever-it-is) -- only that if there's no article to link to, what in the world is the purpose of the link? First write your article, then link it.  I didn't deplore the inclusion of these topics and I also didn't know it was you who included them.  Take your paranoia down a couple of notches, mister.  You're not doing yourself any favors.  NaySay 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, paranoia? I was simply observing that See Alsos shouldn't function as categories do. Marskell 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not you, Marskell. StarHeart above.  Apologies for confusion.  NaySay 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)