Talk:Astrology/Archive 5

Not true
Can someone right a section that explains how astrology is not real so people don't get confused?
 * Anonymous has a legitimate point. There is very little written here on astrology's lack of valid evidence. Jefffire 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a ton about it in the Validity of astrology article which is referenced in this article. This article is already quite large and devoting more space to a subject elaborated on in a lengthier article is simply unnecessary. Sam 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Partially agree, most information should go in validity of astrology. But the scientific consensus isn't given the weight it deserves in the main article. Jefffire 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It got deleted for being a POV fork without notable content and a mess of wiki policy violations. All traces of it have been purged from Wikipedia, but if you are lucky an editor may have saved it in their personal computer. Jefffire 12:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what the contents were, but now we are left with an Astrology article which presents astrology in a misleading positive light, the last edit by Piper Almanac was even more biased and I was close to revert it, I rather have this discussed here first, but the scientific position should be made much more clear. Having an encyclopedia that basically presents astrology as a fact is ridiculous. --Lost Goblin 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. There seems to be at least a hint at the absolute falseness of astrology in every portion of the article. This article is about the historical and modern tradition of astrology and there is a subsection on the modern empirical view and a link to a humongous article on its validity. Any more dogmatic rhetoric would be redundant. Sam 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In some cases the sections relating to science are worded to imply that there is some validity to astrology which of course there isn't. This concern should largely be allieviated with a few NPOV rewords. Jefffire 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether there is validity in astrology or not is debatable and it has certainly been done here before. In order to be NPOV, however, both views should be mentioned in the article in one way or another. I feel that in most places in this article it is sufficient. Astrology is a huge subject and in order to do that subject justice, by supplying neutral information about it and its practice, there needn't be a red alert saying "Modern science has failed to prove astrology. Don't waste your time." There is a sufficient mention of its validity and a link in plain sight to a larger elaboration and space should be reserved for how astrology is practiced. Sam 18:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my position on this matter. Jefffire 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

People with intellect AND integrity, actually make an effort to study the topic they critique. You debunkers, pretending that you're sceptics with integrity, make no such effort. I've been into Astrology for 35 years. No, I do NOT endorse every comment made by every Astrologer. There are plenty of lawyers and surgeons proven to be incompetent, too. But you psuedo-intellectuals demand to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's sad that your lives are so empty that you need to go outside of your area of expertise and harrass. You really should read a text on the scientific method to see how ignorant and hypocritical you are. Until the tools of scientific research can catch up to us Astrologers and our successes these last 5,000 years, I'll continue to remind you debunkers that the word "experiential" is a perfectly good word. Andrew Homer 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Soapbox and Trolling, ignore. Jefffire 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Soapbox, rant and trolling, I'll try to ignore it... Lundse 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Holy Days
Talk on :Twelve Holy Days- a category under astrology

Astrological significance of “ Twelve Holy Days “ requires further discussions & logical interpretation. Its usage in electional astrology has to be explored & as the information provided by this paper may guide the readers to perform holy activities in the said days.

First of all the logic put up that “ the Sun commences its journey from South to North “ during the night between 24th & 25th December, is not corroborated with astronomical fact. For example : winter solstice in 2006 shall start on December, 22 at 00h 32m GMT.

Further the Gregorian calendar has been modified a number of times to rectify errors. Like last time in 1952, Friday, October 5, 1952 was counted as Friday, October 15, 1952. Great Britain it was amended in September, 1952. If start of the said 12 Holy days is to coincide with winter solstice, we may have to change the dates every year accrodingly. Should we understand that for the 19 centuries the masses were following incorrect Holy days, or we are now doing the mistake since 1952.

Further logic given that on December 25, the earth is swept by powerful solstice radiations – also needs corroboration with astrological & astrological observations. It coincides with the shortest day in northern hemisphere, and longest in the southern hemisphere. It can not have the same effects on both the hemispheres. The importance of winter solstice day is also reckoned in Hindu astrology, though they also celebrate the same on the day the Sun enters sidereal Capricorn.

The Sun just ingresses tropical Capricorn sign on winter solstice time. It forms junctional point of two solstices, two signs, seasons etc. Such time is declared as one of the most prohibited time in astrology & especially electional astrology by Hindu / Vedic  system of astrology. Accordngly, the auspicious electional activities are prohibited & only worshipping & donations etc. are prescribed during such junctional durations. For more details please refer to my blog on : "Astrological Junctional Points – Dreadful Periods in Electional Astrology" : Secrets of Vedic Electional Astrology - http://besttimeofelection.blogspot.com

Also the author may like to explain as to how reference to zodiacal sign Virgo has been referred to in connection with the journey of the Sun on December 25. The Sun has no connection with Virgo sign during the said period.

A serious discussion is felt necessary to guide masses, who may have right for logical explanations with reference to Holy book, astronomy as well astrology. The dates may have to be changed to coincide the requirements of the dictums, about which I express my ignorance. Perhaps we require to follow constellation system or transit of the Sun on specific degrees of the zodiac.

--shridharvk, May, 9, March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to put to fine a point on it but...what? Jefffire 09:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image overload?
Is it really necessary to have so many images in this article? There are so many the images form more of a distraction rather than a complement to the text. On my system, some of the lower images throw the alignment of the text all out of whack and make it difficult to read to say the least. How about we keep only the most relevant and scrap the excess? Sam 04:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything we need MORE images on this page; we live in a visual world, where pictures are often more lauded than words/text. You should put back any images recently taken out, too.  --152.163.100.202 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Silly Elbert Wade wouldn't let me put my Astrological website, AstrologersHQ.com, onto his Professional Astrologers webring, because he used some software that calculated what percentage of my website had graphics. According to Wade's arbitrary rules, I have too many images. Shame on me for my Pallas 120 Venus (:40 orb): anticipating that most of my students and customers don't have the visualizing ability that I have. (I learned the hard way about my unique visualizing talent when I turned down my student, Jim Lewis, who wanted me to join him in a little business venture start-up: Astro-Carto_Graphy.  Because I could visualize lines of planetary angles across the Earth's surface, I erroneously assumed everyone could.)  Andrew Homer 05:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that images are an important supplement to the text, but currently there are quite a few images stacked on top of each other with no intelligent placement. The problem with so many images is the article is hardly dynamic and poses a problem for readers who become irritated at the difficulty of reading some of the areas in the article. I've been reading a lot on usability standards in the past couple of months and in the current state, some of the sections of this article fail considerably. Another factor to consider, of course, is the relevancy of the images. We need to determine if an image really complements the article or is just being used because it's available. I've put the image I removed because it was throwing off the alignment of the "see also" area back and I hope we can come to a decision. Sam 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are too many images in this article and they do need to be reduced. I'm fine with any changes that you make.  --Chris Brennan 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Objective validity of astrology
The following two sentences are POV, reword is recommended:

"Where it has been tested, modern western astrologers have been shown to consistently lack predictive power. [5], [6]"

"Astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies, the American Human Society characterised those who continue to have faith in astrology as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary."[7]"

Comments? Aquirata 11:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't POV, it is reporting facts. Jefffire 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick but false statement with nothing to support it.
 * Two references are cited for the first sentence. The first article [5] is from Correlation, which you yourself refuse to accept as a reliable source. The second [6] is a web page. You will need to prove it is a reliable source. If you accept a reference to Correlation here, you will have to accept it everywhere. If you fail to prove that [6] is a reliable source, we will have to remove that reference. I believe we have a huge problem with the first sentence. There is more but we don't need to go there if the references are not reliable.
 * OK, second sentence. Problem #1: There have been a number of tests (some perhaps adhering to the scientific method, and some others perhaps showing a limited understanding of astrology, and even a few where both of these conditions were met and the testers and the data were unbiased, etc) where statistical means failed to uncover evidence for certain very simplistic astrological tenets. You cannot generalise that to 'astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness'. Problem #2: Demonstrating effectiveness is not the same as objective validity. Problem #3: Having faith in astrology has nothing to do with objective validity. Problem #4: The quotation is from ref [7], the infamous Humanist article. This statement has been shown numerous times to be extremely problematic and entirely unscientific (you could call it pseudoscientific if you insist on using that term). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that science weighs objective evidence and not authority or the number of medals certain people collected. To support a scientific or objective point of view in connection with a political agenda is simply ludicrous.
 * All in all, these two sentences are on very shaky grounds. Please provide arguments and references in your reply. It is not sufficient to rely on your authority in making objective decisions regarding this article. Aquirata 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on every count. The website is presenting information from reliable sources, not first hand information so it is acceptable. Your objection to the Humanists is likewise not valid because they two draw from reliable sources, not authority. I am not convinced of the reliablility of Correlation myself, although this individual study seems to be reasonably reliable. I ask that you familurise yourself with the relevent policies to avoid this kind or error. Jefffire 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very clever, again avoiding to answer most of my objections. Your opinion holds no water. Especially not in an astrological debate. Aquirata 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A question of validity is a scientific debate. I've answered your questions. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. There is a specific section for how to address it in pseudosciences such as this. Jefffire 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat my questions then:
 * 1. Do you accept Correlation as a reliable source?


 * 2. A source citing original sources is not a reliable source by default. The sources cited must be reliable and the page itself must be reliable. Can you show me proof?


 * 3. Lack of findings in tests concerning small parts of astrology doesn't warrant the broad statement astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness. What is your proposed reword?


 * 4. How is demonstrating effectiveness the same as objective validity?


 * 5. Do you think having faith in astrology has anything to do with objective validity?


 * 6. How is the Humanist article support a scientific point of view? The article provides no references at all, so it is simply voicing an opinion. Not a reliable source to support a scientific point of view unless you can prove otherwise.


 * Anybody please feel to pitch in here. The above six objections are serious enough to warrant a removal or serious reword of the two sentences in question. Aquirata 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I have my doubts about Correlation but this particles paper appears to be reliable so I am will to waive my general concern for this one instance. Questions 2 to 5 are essentialy simply waffle and sophistery. The humanist society are considered a reliable source as they have established themselves as a respectable rational body. Your objects are unwarrented. Jefffire 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're still not answering the questions. Could anybody else provide justification to keep the sentences as is? Aquirata 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact I have, with the exception of the waffly sophistry ones. Jefffire 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Could anybody else provide justification to keep the sentences as is? Aquirata 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one else is needed. I have shown why they should stay. Jefffire 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could anybody else provide justification to keep the sentences as is? Aquirata 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They are well-sourced, neutral and informative. That is the justification.
 * Moreover, they are wonderfully falsifiable themselves; if someone could point to one test which clearly shows some level of predictive power, then I am all for removing the sentence. Lundse 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A point-by-point response, please. Aquirata 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From the above comments made by Jeffire, it is perfectly possible to make it yourself, here:
 * 1. Do you accept Correlation as a reliable source?
 * He said he would for this instance, that's pretty clear.
 * 2. A source citing original sources is not a reliable source by default. The sources cited must be reliable and the page itself must be reliable. Can you show me proof?
 * This is unclear, proof of what?
 * 3. Lack of findings in tests concerning small parts of astrology doesn't warrant the broad statement astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness. What is your proposed reword?
 * Of course it is - otherwise you would never be able to say anything about astrology as it transmutes and changes as it is tested and as new persons get new ideas for new books. Either we can talk about astrology as a whole or we cannot - if you believe the latter, then start arguing for splitting up all the astrology articles.
 * 4. How is demonstrating effectiveness the same as objective validity?
 * It is pretty tautological. The first is a necesarry and required condition for the latter.
 * 5. Do you think having faith in astrology has anything to do with objective validity?
 * I doubt he does, I certainly do not. Why?
 * 6. How is the Humanist article support a scientific point of view? The article provides no references at all, so it is simply voicing an opinion. Not a reliable source to support a scientific point of view unless you can prove otherwise.
 * The signing parties have some weight behind them and speak through an organization which speaks for a whole lot of scientists - if that body published a statement against something you can be pretty sure they have the accept of a huge majority of their members.
 * Is that clear enough? Lundse 09:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lundse, Thanks for your effort.
 * 1. A source is either reliable or not. I take it that even skeptics agree that we can rely on Correlation as a reliable source.
 * 2. Proof that the sources cited are reliable themselves.
 * 3. You do not seem to appreciate how complex astrology is. When one repeatedly fails to find evidence for say Darwin's evolutionary theory (just an example, not a statement of fact), that doesn't justify the statement science has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness.
 * 4. Astrology can be effective without being objectively valid. For example, it is an effective tool in consultations even if it fails to show anything in a million comprehensive tests of objective validity.
 * 5. Then why mention it in a section about objective validity?
 * 6. Authoritarian justification, which is an irrelevant argument in a debate about objective validity. The Humanist article is voicing an opinion of selected scientists. Granted, they carry some weight. But do we know how much they knew about astrology? No. I doubt they knew more than what they saw in sun-sign columns. This article is a good example of bad PR by the scientific community, and it weakens their case. I don't understand how you can argue for keeping it in. It is relevant in a historical context but not here.
 * Aquirata 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on my position on Correlation. I have my personal doubts about the majority of the publication, but it appears this one article is fairly reliable, so I am willing to make a one time exception. I had thought you regarded it as a reliable source, why are you objecting now? Is this WP:Point? Jefffire 13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you pick and choose the ones that suit your bias I think your word on this topic isn't anymore worthy than my own 32.106.141.121 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To lundse: A skeptic's view is no more neutral than a believer's view. I'm not an astrologer nor a skeptic, but I have studied astrology for some time, so can you please explain why my edit is bad faith while yours is not? I can only agree with Aquirata. The scientific community has no opinion on astrology. It's skeptics like you who do. The cited statement in the Humanist has been criticized by the scientific community for not being scientific. I will therefore change the wording scientific to skeptic and unless you or anyone else can give any substantial arguments to keep the POV statements I vote for editing them out. 32.106.141.121 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About skeptics and believers you are of course right, such a distinction was not the basis for my revert. Your edit seemed based on bad faith because you did not go to the talk page first where a discussion is going on regarding these exact matters.
 * The scientific community very much has a opinion on astrology, which is of course that it is unfalsifiable. Please do not delude yourself than everyone who disagrees with you is a skeptic/debunker - I am a skeptic, meaning just that I would like some evidence. As astrology has presented none, it is the opinion of anyone trusting science that it is a pseudoscience (by syllogism - A. has no evidence, no evidence=pseudoscience, A. = pseudoscience).
 * Please cite some source for your claim that the humanist article is criticised. I do not agree that a statement to the effect that the scientific community is POV (we can discus whether it is wrong, but it is nonsense to call it POV in itself). Lundse 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is simply allowing those sympathetic to chose the language of the debate. Marskell 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Lundse, how do you know the opinions of the scientific community, please provide some support for your pov, and if you can please explain why all scientists of integrity refrain from calling astrology a pseudoscience (not even your infamous statement signed by the 186 leading scientists uses that word - it's quite a laugh reading it knowing that adults and not children are behind it). All any true scientist can do is to possibly cite lack of evidence or research into any claims made by or testable tenets of astrology. It would be unscientific to argue anything else. By your arguing whole branches of psychology must be labelled pseudoscience as well. The scientific method does have its limits, realize that and you'll grow as a human as well. Another thing: The reference claims the link includes the full statement, but I cannot find the names of the undersigned. Out of curiosity can anyone supply the statement including those names? 32.106.141.244 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How I know the opinion...? See the syllogism I put up. If you want to use another word than pseudoscience, that is fine by me - call it "unfounded belief" or similar. This is what is meant by pseudoscience, noone is claiming to disprove, but rather that is has not been positively proven. There is the minor clause, though, that if there was any truth to it, it would be simple to test and find support for - so one can draw certain inferences from the fact that it has not been done...
 * And please stop thinking you know more than me about me, my beliefs, science or what will make me "grow" - it will make you flower into a beautiful butterfly with wings of starlight. Lundse 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "skeptic community" is so-called by those sympathetic to astrology. Actual scientists who are skeptical about astrology are, well, scientists. We can't allow a partisan framing of terms.


 * BTW, my last edit on the page was actually a revert which didn't go thru. I kept getting server errors. Marskell 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 32.106.141.244, It would help if you used some kind of a name, or better yet, get a free Wikipedia username. Re the Humanist article, I don't have a better reference, I guess you'd have to order a reprint or buy the back issue if it is still available. Carl Sagan for one didn't sign, and his justification was as follows:


 * I find myself unable to endorse the 'Objections to Astrology' statement (September/October, 1975) - not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology seems to be quite peripheral to the issue of its validity.


 * That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong. Statements contradicting borderline, folk, or pseudoscience that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more damage than good. They never convince those who are flirting with pseudoscience but merely seem to confirm their impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded...


 * What I would have signed is a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief. My belief is that such a statement would have been far more persuasive and would have produced vastly less controversy than the one that was actually circulated.


 * All you skeptics out there, take notice. Hope Sagan is a reliable enough source for you. Aquirata 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. And I do agree with Sagan that to change opinions a better text could have been written. Nonetheless, the existence of the article proves that a lot of scientists are hostile towards astrology - and those who have refused to sign it are probably as unconvinced as Sagan. So I would say that the article is a good reference, even if it does not express a majority view of scientists (but other sources are required, though). Lundse 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no doubts that the article is representative of a certain scientific mindset that was typical at the time. The problem I have with it is that it presents no scientific arguments, so it is more a historical document than anything else. Aquirata 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add that Paul Feyerabend wrote about his objections to the pact in "The Strange Case of Astrology," in Philosophy of Science and the Occult, ed. Patrick Grim (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990), p. 23-26. He was, of course, a philosopher of science among other things, but not a lab scientist.  His objections were similar to Sagan - a criticism of the authoritarian, unscientific spirit of the statement. Zeusnoos 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised that he had an opinion on the subject, but I wasn't aware of this particular reference. Thanks for contributing it. Aquirata 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dug up this partial list, that of Nobel prize winners signing the Humanist article (probably not a reliable source, so FYI only): http://digilander.libero.it/chateau.merveil/Vita_NG/Statement.htm
 * Aquirata 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sagan's objections were that the statement was authoritarian and potentially harmful, not wrong. He has a valid point but not one which invalidates the references. Jefffire 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Shooting yourself in the foot in my POV opinion. Sagan's statement is an example of writing style which we should all be striving for.
 * I see that none of my objections to the two sentences have been answered apart from you stating that you will consider Correlation to be a reliable reference when it suits your purpuses. Aquirata 13:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My objections have still not been answered. This means the two sentences flagged will be deleted unless somebody comes up with a suitable reword. Aquirata 10:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At least two editors have explained why your objections are groundless. Jefffire 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I beg to differ. Which part of my post of 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC), has been answered and where? Aquirata 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of your points have been answered above. I have explained that the Humanist society is considered reliable, and that I am willing to grant a one time exception to a source you already consider reliable. I have also explained that your philosophical "points" are sophistical waffle. You have no case here. Jefffire 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that my logical reasoning is 'sophistical waffle' doesn't back up your position a bit, and doesn't invalidate mine. Specific objections will have to be answered one by one and not by a broad political sweep. Aquirata 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change it then provide scientifically accepted and verified proof of objective validity from a reliable scientific source. A paper in Nature would suffice. Jefffire 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The point
That's not the point I'm trying to make. I think the misunderstanding that I'm trying to prove the objective validity of astrology may be blurring your picture. I'm saying that the statements made in the two sentences in question are either irrelevant, inaccurate, false or misleading (see details above). I'm also saying that you will have to make up your mind about Correlation: it is either a reliable source or not - it cannot be reliable sometimes and unreliable other times. Moreover, the reliability of the webpage cited is questionable; to accept it as reliable, you will have to show that the sources it cites are reliable themselves.

I am making logical arguments and you are defending a viewpoint. Aquirata 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I say "objective validity" is a nebulous and slippery thing anyway. What is the "objective validity" of Christianity, for example? If there's an elephant in the room, and some chucklehead tells you to prove it, you're wasting your breath. Astrology is the most intricate, complex, fascinating, illuminating and maddening study there is; to argue with those who won't recognize it from a loaf of bread is lunacy. Doovinator 11:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If objective validity is so useless and undefinable, why are you here at wikipedia? I maintain that what is slippery is the subjects that does not lend themselves to be objectively validated.
 * And the objective validity of christianity is zero - it is a religion and based on articles of faith, not anything that can be validated. It is quite easy to prove an elephant in a room or make a falsifiable predition based on a sound scientific theory.
 * And please do not resort to namecalling (we have enough of that kind of astrology buffs here already), I know what astrology is and I also know what objectivity is - and when you try to tell people to give up discussing matters because the other party does not agree with your views, you are not exactly helping wikipedia become more, well, objective. Lundse 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's namecalling? Did you say anything about an elephant? Unless you did, the elephant and the chucklehead are both hypothetical. If you wish to identify yourself as a chucklehead, that's up to you, but I didn't call you or any other actual person anything at all.
 * You say you "know what astrology is". I know what a jet plane is too, but that's a long way from being able to take the thing apart, put it back together and fly it. Can you tell me the house position of the tertiary progression of Jupiter's north node in a Draco solar return for the twenty-fifth year, given a birth time of 3:52 am (you will have to provide the time standard) on August 20, 1956 in Hammond, Indiana? Do you even know where to start? Doovinator 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You were namecalling because your comment about chuckleheads would be parallel to the skeptics in the debate going on here. End of story, don'stop doing it.
 * Okay, I won'stop doing it.Doovinator
 * Duh :-). Lundse
 * I know exactly where to start and thanks for the marvelous example. We both know what a airplane is, yes - and I don't think either of us can take one apart.
 * I can take one apart.Doovinator
 * Good for you and entirely irrelevant, think up someting you cannot do but still know what is. And please do not give the obvious snide comment here and confirm my suspisions about your age. Lundse
 * We also both know what astrology is, and you seem to be able to "take it apart", ie. fiddle with it, know about it, etc.
 * Use it intelligibly and practically, unlike you. Doovinator
 * Yes, still "namecalling", but yes.
 * But we would still be able to make a test saying whether and airplane can fly (eg. compare how many people thought they were flying to a control group seated in the airport) and we can both do the same with regards to astrology. Now I ask you: what is it you claim astrology can do - and then we make a test based on your claims. The intricacies of how and why you arrive at it is incidental to the objective validity, just as how a jet engine works is incidental to the fact that one can fly on an airplane. Lundse 12:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not.
 * Yes it is, read and again and you may get it - or read up on double-blind tests.
 * If you don't understand the intricacies of astrology you will never be able to judge its aims or results.
 * Of course you can, you can make an astrologer say what he can do and test it that claim. If the astrologer can make no claim other than "people believe it works" then good for him and no reason to waste any time looking for anything objective there. Lundse
 * You talk about "a control group", an absolute impossibility where astrology is involved, as every chart, every person, every second is different.
 * You obviously did not read what I wrote - the test subjects do not need to have the same birth data for the test to work, just be broadly comparable (same age, money, education etc. spread). Are you even trying to understand me or are you just blowing of steam? The control group checks how people react to a (random) horoscope, and then you check whether a horoscope specifically designed for them gives a stronger reaction (you could also have people try to "pick" their own horoscope, another easy way to test it). Lundse
 * You will be comparing a jet plane to a blimp to an eagle to a fly to a beetle to a bee to a Beechcraft to a bat. As for "claims", I claim you will never accept any conclusion any astrologer gives you for any reason. That's my test. Prove me wrong. And that is the end of story. Doovinator 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can claim anything you want. I will draw my own conclusions, thank you -
 * yeah, me too, I already have. Doovinator
 * but you or any other astrologer are free to prove me wrong at any time (and/or win 1 million $).
 * I'll take my chances with the lottery. Doovinator
 * But if you say you can do it, you have a better chance here, surely? Lundse

Please let me know what parts of the above you do not understand, or read up on Double-blind tests.
 * I understand all of it, exactly what you are doing, and how worthless your so-called "double-blind" test is, since I already told you there is no such thing as two identical astrology charts.Doovinator
 * Then you obviously did not understand - I told you such a test does not need two identical astrology charts, please reread this sentence and try understanding one more time. Lundse

If you have some other claim (than horoscopes being accurate) I will be happy to think up a test for you and you will be on your way to win a million bucks. Lundse 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So think up a test. I'm sure it will be completely bogus, so I don't think I'll bother with it, but prove me wrong.Doovinator 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a claim and I will. If you do not start discussing, stop namecalling and stop mis-reading me intentionally this discussion is over. Lundse 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I claim that you have no idea what astrology is about, nor will you ever, and since you won't be bothered to find for me the answer to the following basic calculation--or actually I'll make it even easier for you--tell me how to find the information and don't even bother with the actual answer, since I already know you're incapable of that: "tell me the house position of the tertiary progression of Jupiter's north node in a Draco solar return for the twenty-fifth year, given a birth time of 3:52 am (you will have to provide the time standard) on August 20, 1956 in Hammond, Indiana". Answer that or I will never bother with your bogus tests, nor would any legitimate astrologer. Doovinator
 * If you do not start discussing, stop namecalling and stop mis-reading me intentionally this discussion is over. Lundse 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank God!! Doovinator 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "When you try to tell people to give up discussing matters because the other party does not agree with your views" you're generally deploying a logical fallacy: the inverted burden of proof. If you were looking for a description of the criticism of the criticism of astrology... ;) Marskell 23:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I see is this: the only two critical sentences in the entire article are being challenged by a POV-pushing editor. This page is enormously sympathetic to the topic, giving ample space to uncited generalizations about what astrologers believe.


 * Regarding the sources, see WP:V. If dubious sources must be kept they should be attributed. "According to the astrological site X, the theory is..." Marskell 12:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I am challenging the two sentences in question, do you mean to tell me that in your opinion I am a POV-pushing editor? Which Wikipedia guideline or policy did you follow when you wrote this?
 * Now, just because the rest of the page is enormously sympathetic to the topic (in your opinion), that doesn't justify the inclusion of two sentences that are either irrelevant, inaccurate, false or misleading. With respect to sources, you are basically arguing for a reword of the first sentence (According to the Dutch Foundation of Skeptics and the Psychic Investigator websites, modern western astrologers have shown a consistent lack of predictive power in some studies).
 * I ask you to come back to the original, 6-point objection, and provide a reasoned reply to points not yet addressed. I can repeat them with their current status if you like. Aquirata 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What this section should be
... is a summary of the main article it refers to (OVA). This is not a place for a collection of various studies, and the recent addition by Siddharth srinivasan is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. Don't takle me wrong: I don't have a problem with including this content, but I think it should be in the OVA article and not here. Aquirata 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern Aquirata, but it's my opinion that the views of the scientific community are essential to the subject of astrology to give a balanced view, as opposed to the view of the astrologers and the their theories. So according to me, it's vital that they are described here in the main article. The collection of studies are facts given to validate the claims. siddharth 07:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A single study has no place in a summary - it should be moved to the OVA article. We can start adding single studies for and against. What's the point? The presentation already heavily favoured the scientific view, there is no need to bolster it. Aquirata 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A request
I would like to know what Aquirata and Marskell disagree about exactly, what is it one wants included and the other not - as it is now these matters are all over the place. And I would like to see Aquirata repeat his objections more succinctly. If one of you wants to include something about the others argumentation, behaviour, etc., please do this in a seperate list. (Sorry if I come of bossy, I am not deluding myself that I can tell you what to do, but a bit of clarity would be nice). Lundse 12:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, let me repeat my objections then with the arguments put forth:
 * 1. Do you accept Correlation as a reliable source?
 * Jefffire: I have my doubts about Correlation but this particles paper appears to be reliable so I am will to waive my general concern for this one instance.
 * Aquirata: A source is either reliable or not.
 * Jefffire: There seems to be some confusion on my position on Correlation. I have my personal doubts about the majority of the publication, but it appears this one article is fairly reliable, so I am willing to make a one time exception. I had thought you regarded it as a reliable source, why are you objecting now?
 * 32.106.141.121: Since you pick and choose the ones that suit your bias I think your word on this topic isn't anymore worthy than my own
 * I am sorry, but that does nothing for me - why can Jeffire not believe one article is a good source while not necesarrily believing a magazine it was published in is? I would then have to believe everything in a philosophical journal is right because I liked the article on Kierkegaard? Lundse
 * Because this will introduce selection bias (also see scientific method). Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bullshit! Selection bias has nothing to do with what articles from a magazine you believe in, it has to do with picking data samples. Try again. Lundse 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. A source citing original sources is not a reliable source by default. The sources cited must be reliable and the page itself must be reliable. Can you show me proof?
 * Jefffire: [This is] essentialy (sic) simply waffle and sophistery (sic).
 * Lundse: This is unclear, proof of what?
 * Aquirata: Proof that the sources cited are reliable themselves.
 * In some cases you might be on to something. If there is reason to suspect a source, it should be checked and possibly not included (if it itself has problems with its citation and especially if it seems to be written in bad faith). But the objective is verifiability, that people can go check for themselves - thus, a source may be acceptable even if it is less than perfect (as long as it is not misrepresented, ie. a webpage claimed to be reasearch). Lundse
 * The source in question here is the Psychic Investigator site. The article is quoting Nature, which is clearly a reliable source. The question is whether the article's presentation of the Nature article is reliable or not. Why not just cite Nature? Even bigger questions, though, are how two studies can justify the statement 'modern western astrologers have shown a consistent lack of predictive power'? How can a generalization such as this be made, and what does astrologers' performance have to do with the objective validity of astrology? Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, there are plenty of failed tests mentioned throughout this encyclopedai, forcing us to list them all is just being contrary. Secondly, since astrologers could so easily show just one that did not fail, I think it is fair to say they fail (since they try and do not succeed). Regarding the generalization, then such things must be made for us to have an article called astrology. Lundse 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Lack of findings in tests concerning small parts of astrology doesn't warrant the broad statement 'astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness'. What is your proposed reword?
 * Jefffire: [This is] essentialy (sic) simply waffle and sophistery (sic).
 * Lundse: Of course it is - otherwise you would never be able to say anything about astrology as it transmutes and changes as it is tested and as new persons get new ideas for new books. Either we can talk about astrology as a whole or we cannot - if you believe the latter, then start arguing for splitting up all the astrology articles.
 * Aquirata: You do not seem to appreciate how complex astrology is. When one repeatedly fails to find evidence for say Darwin's evolutionary theory (just an example, not a statement of fact), that doesn't justify the statement science has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness.
 * I am sorry, but it is sophistry. At some point you will have to make a broad statement and this is especially true in this case where no good research has let us to believe otherwise. One single good source saying anyone, anywhere found any signifigant correlations and I am all for removing this broad statement - the fact that there is none is extremely damning. And evolution is a terrible example, proof is found all the time, with every new species, and even if it had not it would not make any dent in other sciences. Astrology is based on one clear-cut idea, that there is correlation between earthly and heavenly affairs - that is the basic tenent tested time and again with no positive results. Lundse
 * One can state that 'scientists have failed to find any evidence supporting the objective validity of astrology', but even that is stretching it (see Mars effect). The point is that failure to find evidence for some 'thing' is 1) not evidence that the 'thing' doesn't exist (perhaps we've been looking for the 'thing' in the wrong place), and 2) not evidence that something much broader than the 'thing' has no objective validity (or, even worse, 'effectiveness' - see above). Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So we cannot write that dragons are fictional because we have not looked under every rock? Come on, failure to show one shred of evidence is a pretty good indication that something does not work - at some point we have to write that. Lundse 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. How is demonstrating effectiveness the same as objective validity?
 * Jefffire: [This is] essentialy (sic) simply waffle and sophistery (sic).
 * Lundse: It is pretty tautological. The first is a necesarry (sic) and required condition for the latter.
 * Aquirata: Astrology can be effective without being objectively valid. For example, it is an effective tool in consultations even if it fails to show anything in a million comprehensive tests of objective validity.
 * This is simply wrong. If it were effective in consultations (beyond chance), then it would of course be objectively valid. Any effectiveness other than "it makes me feel good" statements can be tested, although denying this is of course essential to all pseudosciences. Lundse
 * My problem is with the expression 'effectiveness'. This is not the same as 'objective validity'. A consultation may be 'effective' without being objective or objectively valid. A consultation is already 'effective' when the client feels good afterwards. It may be placebo-effective, but it still is effective. So 'effectiveness' has nothing to do with 'objective validity'. Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. If it is placebo-effectiveness then the treatment is not effective, and we can write that and conclude it has no objective validity. Or would you say that the chalk-tablets given to the one cancer patient who got better after a doubleblind test were effective? Or that the medicatoin which did no better than the placebo was? Do you not understand the difference between being effective in itself and being called effective? Lundse 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. Do you think having faith in astrology has anything to do with objective validity?
 * Jefffire: [This is] essentialy (sic) simply waffle and sophistery (sic).
 * Lundse: I doubt he does, I certainly do not. Why?
 * Aquirata: Then why mention it in a section about objective validity?
 * Indeed, why mention it? You brought up having faith as connected to the matter of validity, did you not? Lundse
 * No, I didn't bring it up, it is part of the second sentence being questioned: "The group, advocating against all things supernatural, characterised those who continue to have faith in astrology ..." Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But did anyone ever say it had anything to do with objective validity? I cannot for the life of me see why you ever asked this question. Lundse 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6. How is the Humanist article support a scientific point of view? The article provides no references at all, so it is simply voicing an opinion. Not a reliable source to support a scientific point of view unless you can prove otherwise.
 * Jefffire: The humanist society (sic) are considered a reliable source as they have established themselves as a respectable rational body.
 * Lundse: The signing parties have some weight behind them and speak through an organization which speaks for a whole lot of scientists - if that body published a statement against something you can be pretty sure they have the accept of a huge majority of their members.
 * Aquirata: Authoritarian justification, which is an irrelevant argument in a debate about objective validity. The Humanist article is voicing an opinion of selected scientists. Granted, they carry some weight. But do we know how much they knew about astrology? No. I doubt they knew more than what they saw in sun-sign columns. This article is a good example of bad PR by the scientific community, and it weakens their case. I don't understand how you can argue for keeping it in. It is relevant in a historical context but not here.
 * Lundse: I do agree with Sagan that to change opinions a better text could have been written. Nonetheless, the existence of the article proves that a lot of scientists are hostile towards astrology - and those who have refused to sign it are probably as unconvinced as Sagan. So I would say that the article is a good reference, even if it does not express a majority view of scientists (but other sources are required, though).
 * Jefffire: Sagan's objections were that the statement was authoritarian and potentially harmful, not wrong. He has a valid point but not one which invalidates the references.
 * The existence of the article proves that a lot of scientists are hostile towards astrology: Correct. Then state that 'the majority of the scientific community is hostile to astrology', and use the Humanist article as a source to back up that statement. I don't see how the statement 'astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies, according to the American Humanist Society' follows from the cited article. Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So Marskell has actually nothing to do with this. :) Aquirata 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marskells last point (and my own last, of course), what are you arguing by your last statement? Lundse
 * Thanks for doing all this work, but you have not convinced me, I am afraid, of your viewpoints. Feel free to "take up the glove" once again. Lundse 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So Marskell's time is limited and you're wasting enough of it at the moment. I have spoken to points as points have arisen. But I'll tell you what: your inversion of what NPOV says (see "sympathy" below) and your request for a citation on "astronomy is accepted as science" yesterday are so mind-numbing and (IMO) deliberately obtuse that I think I'm going to cease speaking altogether and file a WP:RfC. Marskell 11:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Marskell, I have copied the relevant portion of the NPOV policy here:
 * "Fairness and sympathetic tone
 * If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view."
 * And that of verifiability:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."
 * So even though you, your neighbour and even I consider astronomy a science, you have no choice but either 1) present this as a viewpoint or 2) present it as fact with sources. The sentence in question was highly POV when the objection was made. While not perfect, it is much better now. Aquirata 13:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lundse, please see my comments above. Aquirata 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any response to the objections. Aquirata 13:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of astrology in the introduction
I think it's important to include the criticism of astrology in the main introduction to give a balanced view, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community dismisses astrology as a pseudoscience. siddharth 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Marskell 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add, partly on stylistic grounds, that we don't need a specific name as you have in your addition. A robust but general description of the criticisms would be good for an intro on a subject like this. Marskell 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Negative effects of astrology on society
I propose to introduce a new section on the negative effects or harmful effects of astrology on society, such as it promoting uncritical and irrational thinking. Also, the effects of the casual acceptance of astrology in society, which contributes to junk science or voodoo science, the implications when political leaders consult astrologists while making important decisions, etc. What are your opinions on introducing this section? siddharth 08:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all for it, but it would be extremely hard to keep it NPOV and even harder to make everyone accept it as such. But yes, the Reagan administration would be a good source/example, as well as the fact that some firms hire based on it. Lundse 08:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Perceived negative effects" would avoid the POV in the title at least. Marskell 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think astrology's negative effects on society would be impossible to prove in a factual manner. Marskell is correct in saying that perceived negative effects would be better as a title, but what is the point really? If you want to add such a section, you will also have to address astrology's perceived positive effects. Aquirata 09:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. It might be impossible to prove it in a factual manner, but a lot of scientists strongly feel that astrology does infact harm the society. Won't it be okay to include these claims with citations? siddharth 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Secondly, as for the percevied positive effects, it's simple. There are none :P. But seriously, if you want to include percieved postive effects, I think you could do that with citations siddharth 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Perceived positive effects" already have a section—most of the rest of the article. We don't need it. Marskell 12:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I came to thinking that a section (perhaps divided in 2) about the cultural impact would be a good way to deal with all this. That way, we can split up facts about what it is, the perceived scientific value and lastly how it affects society (columns, usage, etc. and stuff on the good and bad). Still a minefield when it comes to POV, but it could be done (and would be a place to stick some unnecesarry comments from the rest of the article, in a better format). Lundse 12:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with this proposed approach. Aquirata 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but in my opinion (since this whole section is nothing more than opinions, I might as well interject my own) our civilization has become altogether too rational in its thinking. As you feared, a natural reaction is to point out that this almost religious insistence on a perceived notion of "rational" thinking has shut our world off from its intuitive roots.  You are literally throwing the baby out with the bath water, to quote Kepler yet again.  Would you then wish to write a section in the articles on the Catholic Church or on Buddhism, decrying their influence on  society's increasingly "uncritical" and "rational" thinking?  Forgive me for suspecting that this is nothing more than bias, and a distinctly parochial one at that.   NaySay 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with NaySay 100%. Also, I would like to interject about the "No positive effects" comment. Astrology is a tool, and like any tool it has a good and bad side. Why do you think people even bother with astrology after all of this time while the entire world pushes logical, materialistic ideas down their throats? It's helped me tremendously, as a personal, introspective tool. There are people in the world who depend on astrology just as a Christian depends on Jesus. It's something that helps people realize where they are and what they should be doing. I don't think there is anything negative in knowledge of yourself or the world around you. That being said, astrology has of course been used in negative ways, but when you compare it to other subjects, so has everything else. What about the negative impact of science? What about the negative impact of narrow-minded materialism? Sam 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I to take NaySay and Sam as saying that rationality has gone too far and thus we need to be less rational? If astrology helps you in some other way than a rational one, that is fine - but when checking whether it helps a signifigant portion of people (better than chance) we have to use something. If not rationality, what? Throw a die? Let the majority rule? Lundse 16:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that may be the case, as there needs to be a balance. Who said anything about astrology not helping in a rational way? Interpreting an astrological chart is a very rational process. It uses a method just as science does. The information gained from this method isn't just made up by the astrologer. I think it's absurd we're even discussing this. Why aren't people talking about the negative effects of science? What about the effects of an atomic bomb? That's a product of the scientific method, and it can kill masses of people. Is that not negative? This is a useless discussion. There is negativity in everything. Sam 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People do talk about the negative effects of science. Scientists do. Philosophers do. The comment is an appeal to emotion anyway—the scientific method works, regardless of subsequent application. No known astrological method works, no matter how great it makes one feel.
 * Anyhow, re the subject of this thread:
 * Cultural expression and impact
 * Rejection of astrology Marskell 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who says astrology doesn't work? Do you even know anything about how it is practiced? I think if dogmatic debunkers actually educated themselves on the subject they are dragging through the mud and took a look at their own nativity they would be quite surprised. Science is objective. Not everything is objective. Not everything, therefore, is capable of being proven by science. Science takes one factor in astrology and uses it against a plethora of other factors. It is thus natural to fail in scientific tests. Astrology is simply not positively viewed in the status quo and science is. A thousand years ago, the science article here on Wikipedia would have been just as controversial as this one. It is simply a change in the trend of humanity, and throughout this history there have been new ideas which were termed enlightening compared to the previous ones. A thousand years from now, who can even imagine what people will think of science? There will be a new method and the fringe who practice science will be scoffed at for using something so primitive. My point is, everything in today's society is relative to yesterday's, and just because the majority doesn't approve of something doesn't mean it is useless. Everything has a negative side because nothing is perfect. Having an open mind to the awful, primitive, and restricting subject of astrology just simply isn't acceptable, is it? Sam 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this is complete codswallop. Not everything is objective? Of course not, I may like different music than you do - and you affection for astrology is certainly not objective and nor can it be expected to be. But whether astrology can tell us something, with a higher degree of succes than chance - that is easily checked quite objectively. And one does not need to know one bit about astrology to do it. One takes a batch of people and give them a horoscope made by an astrologer and let them rate it for succes, then you take a similar group and do the same - only you give them all a wrong horoscope. If the first group rates the horoscopes higher than the second, you have validated astrology - and won 1 million $ see JREF and could easily persuade the scientific community to rewrite the laws of physics (as they did when Einstein and Bohr revolutionized things). I think you would rather just use the ratings that you and your friends came up with and not compare them to a control group - it won't disrupt your worldview as much (and you are scientifically guaranteed to get around a 84% rate of success). Lundse 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that a good understanding of astrology is critical in doing a study and I'm surprised you don't think it is. Many things need to be considered in such a case, including the objective of the study and if that objective is outside the limits of astrology (which you could only know if you knew how the interpretations were made), the method of interpretation being used (Western tropical, Vedic sidereal, any combination of the two, and more), and of course the competency of the astrologers. You challenged me with the $1 million, so how about I challenge you. I challenge you to learn how to interpret natal charts (if you haven't done so already) and study your own. Then look at your friends' and study theirs. Try this thing out for yourself instead of relying on the what the majority is saying. Anyway, I apologize for allowing this to stray so far from the original subject. Sam 21:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the point. Interpreting natal charts is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you need to interpret. The fact is that, under controlled experiments, astrology isn't able to make consistent accurate predictions, as a number of experiments have shown. So, it doesn't matter what you do, or what understanding of astrology you have, to see that in controlled experiments, it doesn't work 59.92.50.130 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section
I'm going to avoid a long response to Samuella's point immediately above with this short one: a "good understanding" of astrology is not needed to analyze proposed mechanisms any more than Kepler needed a "good understanding" of the planet Venus to arrive at the laws of planetary motion. He needed the principle, the mathematics, and the method of deduction.

Whew. The proposed new section


 * Cultural expression and impact
 * Rejection of astrology

I don't want "rejection of" to sound too punishing. I just want a place for, for example, "the Catholic Church and Islamic doctrine consider it a superstition." I actually added that point once upon a time and it was removed (surprise). Marskell 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this proposed new section is missing a positive subsection (in the interest of providing a balanced view). I would also call the negative subsection Objections to astrology to stay as much NPOV as possible. Aquirata 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps we should just have a Criticisms section and leave it at that. That would be very much Wiki style. Marskell 10:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro
Well I done wore myself out. The anon has reverted five times and I posted it on the Admin noticeboard. Perhaps someone else would revert back to the sourced version. Marskell 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I like it. Thanks! Doovinator 01:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't . It's important to include the criticism of astrology in the main introduction to give a balanced view. 59.92.50.130 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think that the intro, as it stands now, gives a general description of the criticisms without referring to individual skeptics. Is this agreeable to all? siddharth 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about astrology. The opinions of skeptics on astrology is well-known. I think even you can agree that most readers of an article on astrology actually would like to know something about it and not the stale opinions of skeptics. --32.106.141.5 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon, you were blocked at another IP for three hours recently for a WP:3RR violation. All you're doing by reverting further is inviting longer blocks across different IPs. Marskell 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about that rule (please forgive a newbie editor). Just a question don't your reverts count the same as mine? --32.106.141.62 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have reverted nine times. One IP was blocked, two received warnings, and this comment from me has stood for more than twenty hours. And your first revert called another editors work vandalism. Please save it. Marskell 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And your point in non-sensical - the article is about astrology and everyone knows the skeptics point of view? But do they know the reasons and the amount of tests which have failed to validate astrology - I have sure met a lot of people who haven't and I guess your circle of friends is not swarming with them either. Calling the opinions of researchers and scientists stale is a bit much from someone defending 2000 year old dogma... But of course you are right that the article should contain detailed information on the different branches of astrology - hopefully one day branching out into a myriad sub-articles about it; noone is talking against that, but for inclusion of something else. Lundse 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think astrology is only 2,000 years old only proves that you know virtually nothing about the subject. So remind me again why you are editing this article if you don't even know the basics regarding the history of astrology?  I wouldn't mind if you were only off by 500 years or so, but the fact that you're WAAAAAAY off (to the tune of thousands and thousands of years) just makes you look more like a know-nothing when it comes to this subject.  --205.188.117.7 05:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, an astrologer here told me I could only count from around 200 years ago. And how old it is hardly matters anywho - but go ahead and keep at this for proof that I know nothing about validity (which you are probably much better at, having studied astrology). BTW, I never claimed to know any particulars of astrology. Lundse 10:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again I'll ask: why are you here editing the page if you "never claimed to know any particulars of astrology"? Shouldn't you leave the editing up to the people who actually know "the particulars" about the subject?  --152.163.100.202 16:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good laugh lundse! I guess astrology could be thought a bit stale from the outside looking in, but personally (and i know i'm not alone in this) i find astrology rejuvenating and not at all as dogmatic as say darwinian biology. The non-sensical point was that the expected reader might be more interested in astrology itself than in the opinions held with regard to it by a certain group of people who seemingly could care less about the subject itself. --32.106.141.62 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you think astrology is more "alive" or "moving" that Darwinism? It is rather obvious you do not know anything about evolution nor science, then. As long as it has not been tested (and changed based on those tests) astrology is stale and dogmatic - evolution is shifting and shooting off sub-branches based on evidence. And I have always written, quite clearly, here that I believe the astrology article should hold lots of information on astrology (all of it uninteresting to me, BTW) but that it should also note what it is and is not from a more distanced view. This includes whether or not it is a science. Why do you people think that if I want to write it is not a science, that space has to be taken from something else you want to put in? Lundse 10:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the clause "because from a scientific point of view, astrology offers no theory which can make testable predictions" should go. Someone would argue the opposite: it does make testable predictions and it is the failure of these that invalidate it. I wrote the following and actually had it in the intro (rm'ed by Aquirata to a later section): "Within the scientific community, 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." There is a subtle difference in meaning here. Marskell 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've put that bit into the intro. siddharth 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the argumentative statement from the intro, there is no place for it here. This is being argued in the OVA subsection and the OVA article. If you actually familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy, you will notice that editors are supposed to be sympathetic to the subject that they write about. To slant the intro in favour of the scientific view of the topic is unacceptable. Aquirata 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My God. Have you been editing this whole time under the impression "editors are supposed to be sympathetic to the subject"?

NPOV: "It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

The sentences that are being removed are simple, true, on-topic and sourced (until anon rm'ed the sources, of course). These reverts are coming very close to vandalism. Marskell 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, removing a sentence saying astrology is not a science is not acceptable. Do you guys think is a science? Or do you just not like the fact that is presented against the science of astronomy? Whatever the cause, I no longer believe Aquirata is acting in good faith but is trying to protect astrology from criticism.
 * I for one (not a skeptic) does not consider astrology to be a science the way you view astronomy. The introduction never labels astrology a modern science (it doesn't even mention the word as of 11:57, 29 May 2006). Criticism are welcome where it belongs in the OVA section, ok?


 * While we are supposed to be sympathetic, this does not mean we cannot write about the nazi extermination of the Jews, for instance, but that one should write how not every German was a nazi, how the decision was made and who was and was not responsible, without using value-loaded words to condemn anyone unnecesarrily.
 * Same with astrology, I know most astrologers believe it themselves and calling them charlatans and con-artists would be extremely POV and something I would never support. I would, however, support writing in a biographical article on an astrologer that he was convicted of fraud if that were the case, just as I will not hold back facts about astrology itself just because some people have a problem with it and thinks it criticizes them.
 * The Dune Discrepancy article is filling up with errors in the original books which I care very much for. But I am not going to try and remove them as they are factual - if I want the article to also show the good parts of what I love, I should write them up where they fit in; not try to delete something which is true but which I might not like. Lundse 10:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement in the intro is a true, sourced fact. It does not represent an opinion (as i mistakenly stated in my edit summary). I'm not trying to slant the topic. The intro can be neutral and balanced only when the sourced fact is present siddharth 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that some skeptics might be slightly less intelligent (creative, humorous, etc) than the average person, so I'll try harder to explain the situation here. There is valid criticism of astrology (lack of statistical testing of claims could be one perhaps) and the way it's practiced by some people. This can be said of pretty much any practical subject including medicine and psychology. Does this mean that these subjects are objectively invalid? No, it doesn't. The opinions of the skeptic community are not to be equated with the opinions of the scientific community (not even the amazing randi's:). Lastly, neither favorable nor unfavorable opinions of astrology belong in the introduction. The introduction to such a huge subject with millenia of history behind it reads better without them (I think we can all agree on that). Valid criticism with sources of scientific nature are more than welcome in the section the objective validity of astrology. The readers of an article on astrology are more than likely repulsed by the constant regurgitations of the well-known and by know completely stale preconceptions by skeptics. If you have some scientific arguments to present they are welcome, but just because an opinion is skeptic does not mean it is scientific (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Please respect the subject matter from now on (if you want to edit it, at least take some time studying it first) -- 32.106.141.242 11:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will contact some admins to try to watch and block this troll. Marskell 12:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, from the NPOV policy:
 * "Fairness and sympathetic tone
 * If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone."
 * What's wrong with the assumption that editors need to be sympathetic to the subject they write about? Sympathy to a subject doesn't mean that they need to believe in it. Aquirata 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement that 'astrology is not considered mainstream science' may be true but also is the statement 'astronomy is not considered mainstream art/religion/divination/whatever'. Do you see such a statement in the introduction for astronomy? No, you don't, because it doesn't belong there even though it's true. Why? Because it is an irrelevant argument in the context of the article, especially in the introduction. It may belong in the subsection arguing about objective validity. It may belong in the OVA article itself. It has simply no place here in the intro. If you believe I am trying to protect astrology from 'criticism', why are you trying to put 'criticism' in the introduction? The statement 'astrology is not considered mainstream science' is 'criticism' only from your point of view; in my view, it is simply irrelevant in the context of the article. Aquirata 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Followed by: "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views." ... "We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail." The section in toto does not support your argument. In fact, it supports ours: we're pointing out a clear, widespread view of detractors. And the sentence isn't "mean" (note the difference b/w "sympathetic tone" and "sympathetic to"); no one, as Lundse says, is suggesting we call it a fraud or a group of charlatans. Marskell 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your definition of relevance? Would you consider confronting an inaccurate meme relevant? People do consider astrology a science--we should point out that, where pronouncements have been made, the scientific community finds this in error. That's entirely relevant. The astronomy comparison is a non-sequitor. There's no such thing as a "mainstream" art, religion or divination (there are more "popular" forms, OK). Marskell 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Loads of people think it is a science or that it is accepted "somewhat" ("otherwise, why would all the newspapers have a section on it", "why would it have fitted so well last week"). You are the one wanting an article on the comparison of astrology and astronomy - so this means we cannot make comparing statements in other places?
 * And sorry, but I cannot maintain good faith any more, I do not believe you are trying to remove something irrelevant - you are trying to remove something which is a thorn in the eye of astrologers. You started calling such statements POV and now you call them irrelevant, which is it? And sorry, but anything calling itself -ology is fair game for being compared to science - you are simply not going to get away with editing out the fact that astrology is not a science and has no scientific merit. If you persist in this ludicrous attempt to edit out an extremely informative line in this article I will support and RfC against you.
 * So let's convince the mainstream to change the name (back) to the more old-fashioned Astromancy if the much revered and respected suffix '-ology' bothers you. Will that quell your -ology-anxiety?  --205.188.117.7 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no anxiety, nor do I care about what you call it. But as long as it has the "might be true" status in a lot of people's mind and while it consists or statistical jumbling about it does look like a science to some and it should be pointed out it is not. Lundse 10:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And to the anonymous person who keeps reverting too: do you hold the same beliefs as Aquirata or would you like to join the discussion too? Why do you think it should be removed? Lundse 13:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Argument in introduction
... was moved to the OVA section, along with a 'fact' tag. This has been already explained over at the OVA article. Aquirata 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this for a compromise: "Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers and as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community." Both statements will need to be sourced properly. Aquirata 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's reasonably well organized now, OK by me. Doovinator 11:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK by me (or something like it), I do think that it should be "most" of the scientific community or just "the scientific community" (unless someone can find a scientist or two who does not think it is). Lundse 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)