Talk:Astrology and science

wikidata link
I tried, with Wikidata, to link "Astrology and science" to its French counterpart étude statistique de l'astrologie (beware: the first vowel is accentuated) but failed (probably because the vowel is accentuated). If somebody can help, thanks. 89.90.40.202 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same issue, but I tried a non-accented article, same issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ They have all been merged into Q3592582. The reason for your problem is that both existed as separate items, and each sitelink can only be used on one item.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Progressivity of the reasoning
For a Good Article, I would expect in the introduction more references to the "many" (it is said so) astrologers who claim or have claimed that astrology is scientific (the French interwiki may help, with references to Krafft or Choisnard). This is WHY there is a matter "Astrology and Science". I particularly appreciated the amplification of viewpoints in the conclusion with the reference to Carl Gustav Jung. The latter believed in astrology as he believed in alchemy: as a matter of faith (I appreciated the statement: "Synchronicity is not falsifiable" in the conclusion), not necessarily as a science. All astrologers are not so intolerant as to impose their beliefs (it is rightly said in the introduction that astrology is a system of beliefs) on others. Otherwise, I find this a very well constructed article, very clear. I am not too far from voting for a Good Article. Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is no use of the word many in the introduction. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that I highlight that many astrologers claim astrology is scientific? It's a good point, and I'll have a look at expanding on that. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. It is in fact said (a bit late) in the conclusion: "Many astrologers claim that astrology is scientific". In the French article, astrology is in the categories "superstition" (I understand: there is a belief in supernatural causes, such as with the Babylonian priests), "medieval belief" (I understand: it was a religion before; it is now only a belief) and pseudo-science (astrology became a mixture of rational and irrational thoughts with the Greeks and their "rational spirit"). In my humble opinion, the astrologers who say astrology is a science do not know the history of their discipline. Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Proofs" that Astrology is a pseudo-science
I read in the article Pseudoscience that an indication is the "failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims" and that "Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia". If it can help... Philippe Ginouillac (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another good point. I'll have a read up on Terence Hines, and the general point about failing to progress etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * RE: Astrology has changed very little.


 * My experience is that it's useless to lecture Wiki, but I will make some notes in passing.


 * Astrology is dependent upon latitude as it must reduce three dimensions into two, plus account for time. As a consequence, before there were Arabic numbers (1202 in Europe), astrology had to make do with various crude hash mark systems, Roman numbers being the best of the lot.  Consequently it was impossible to set up accurate house systems in Europe before there was a number system that could manage it.  Yes you can do spherical trig in Romans, but it ain't easy and most people won't.  (Compare to traditional Chinese numbering if you want to know why they clung to the abacus centuries after Europe had abandoned it.)


 * Contrast to India, which is mainly equatorial. In India, all house division systems result in more or less equal houses.  Hence the Hindu reliance upon houses over signs, which they largely ignore.  They generally smear houses into signs anyway.  Note that it was India that developed "Arabic" numbers, around 300 AD.


 * But the equal house dodge won't work further north. Lack of a number system kept astrology out of northern Europe until medieval times.  Campanus (13th century) was the first to use Arabic numbers to generate actual house cusps, only a few decades after Arabic numbers were introduced. He was followed by the 15th century Regiomontanus and his "rational" house system.  Both of these were based on the division of space.


 * But the real prize was division by time. The Greeks had ascensional times, which was cleverly exploited by Vettius Valens (2nd century AD).  Which was based on the work of Hipparchus (2nd century BC), but its astrological use was fragmentary as none of the various Helenistic number systems were powerful enough to make it a comprehensive system.  Ascensional times are, by the way, the origin of Primary Directions.


 * It was the 17th century Placidus de Titis who finally worked out the ancient rising time system and gave us Placidus houses. It simply took that long to master the Arabic number system.  Someone could do a useful survey on how Arabic numbers changed the world.


 * Meanwhile, for centuries most astrologers practiced judicial astrology. Which is to say, mundane.  The astrology of the king and his kingdom.  Will there be war, or peace.  Weather astrology was a useful sideline - and one that ought to be on this page, by the way.  For common people, who rarely knew the exact day of their birth, horary astrology.  As in, is my wife cheating on me?  You think astrology has no risks?  You tell a man his wife is not cheating and then get caught wrong.


 * Horary astrology, which has its origins in Katarche came to be a sophisticated blend of house, sign and planet, to produce entirely imaginary results, of course. The 17th century Jean-Baptiste_Morin_(mathematician)  who did not like horary at all (he thought it a trick of infidel Muslims) introduced horary techniques into natal chart reading.  It's clever of Wiki to call him a mathematician, by the way.  He wrote one of the greatest of all astrology texts, the Latin Astrologia Gallica, but as the world was shifting from Latin into local vernacular and as England was becoming the center of the astrological world, his masterpiece lay largely ignored until the middle of the 20th century.  It has only been in the last 20 years that significant portions of his text has been translated into English, never mind any other modern language.


 * Natal astrology did not become dominant until the 20th century and Alan Leo. Horary had been the standard for at least 1000 years, ever since the Arabs perfected it.  Once natal astrology was introduced, horary faded, until it was reintroduced by Derek Appleby in the late 1970's, assisted by Olivia Barclay.  I give names but only when they're deceased.  Wiki editors have a bad habit of attacking people on the various talk pages.  Few of us are in the loop and are unaware of what goes on behind the scenes.


 * Using Morin's techniques - which simply exploit what has always been available - we can now read charts with astounding precision. Unlike anything in any of the scientific experiments.  But, speaking on behalf of astrologers, we are still as lousy at forecasting as we've ever been.  I am surprised we do as well with forecasting as we have, given that we must first understand the person and then guess at his free will.  I can tell you that in reading Valens carefully, the Greeks were reviving astrology.  Not inventing it.


 * If you want proof of astrology, look no further than the weather. The premise is simple.  If astrological energies are pervasive and if they interpenetrate the planet, then the environment will be entirely shaped by astrological factors, strictly applied.  No free will.  No natal charts.  No excuses.  Straight cause and effect.  Astrologers in fact commonly predict the weather months and years in advance.  And have, for at least ten centuries.  What do you think the old farmers at the Old Farmer's Almanac have been up to for the last 222 years?  Yes, if you ask them, they will deny.  You think they want this hostility directed at them?  The best astrologers hide.


 * By contrast, consensus-based "enlightened" science goes from fad to fad. Pop music has more staying power.  Go read old science magazines until you figure it out.  Do we really know more now than a century ago, or ten years ago?  Most everything we now hold dear in science will be discredited in our own lifetimes.  That's not progress, it's guesswork.  How many science books ever get a second printing?  Libraries commonly throw old science books away.  The reason public libraries fail to stock astrology books was given to me by a librarian many years ago:  They're invariably stolen.  In 1910 Llewellyn George published his A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator.  It has 813 pages.  By 1973 it had gone through 35 printings, all in hardcover.  George himself died in 1954.  The book was finally retired around thirty years ago, in part as the original plates were entirely worn out.


 * Astrology has been in continual development for 2000 years. Aristotelian science was 1800 years old before the enlightened French (who were entirely ignorant, by their own admission) threw him away in 1650.  Your science is a newcomer.  It's Aristotle you're fighting.  Philippe Ginouillac should take the time to study the subject before he repeats common mistakes.  The ignorance of astrologers is only exceeded by the ignorance of its detractors.  Wiki is starting to cover its ignorance with censorship and exclusion.  Anyone with a brain knows where that will end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.151.239 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tropical or Sidereal? The article and discussion appear to be lacking. I was wondering if anyone had analyzed sidereal astrology, but the differences between sidereal and tropical astrology weren't even touched. From what I have read here, it appears that the analyses were of tropical astrology, and the reviewers didn't know the difference, but that is uncertain. PLewicke (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement: While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological hypothesis in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life astrology is not scientific is quite bizarre, as can be seen by replacing in it the stars by the Sun, since it would imply that one cannot study scientifically the influence of the Sun on human behaviour, which one clearly can do (e.g. studying correlations between the clothes that people wear and the position of the Sun). Did Kuhn really mean what is attributed to him? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science
The article fails to present the arguments proposed by Paul Feyerabend. Here are my sources: http://books.google.co.th/books?id=5VewAkDw8h0C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=feyerabend,+Statement+of+186+Leading+Scientists%E2%80%9D+against+astrology+(1975)&source=bl&ots=xcD20N0sof&sig=sBsg5hjgg56FXVpwTOm3LBpgHT8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MPOqUZ6AAsW-rgfmkIG4Bg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=feyerabend%2C%20Statement%20of%20186%20Leading%20Scientists%E2%80%9D%20against%20astrology%20(1975)&f=false

The article also fails to provide a reliable, external reference of a scientific proof that scientific proofs are the only real ones as per WP:SOURCE policy. Mauricelavenant (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your second statement is purely nonsensical. On the first paragraph, Feyerbend is a primary source for Feyerbend, but I will look for secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * feyerabend is a secondary source interpreting the many, many materials cited in his text. surely one could say "noted philosopher of science paul feyerabend has criticized the casual dismissal of astrology as a pseudoscience, arguing" blah, blah, blah.  or something.  also i think it would not be difficult to read mauricelavenant's comment about "scientific proofs" as suggesting that reductive materialism may have its limits.  "purely nonsensical" is unkind.Zach bender (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

post-modern developments in astrology
There is a lot of mention in the article about how astrology is moribund; not challenging its own doctrines or changing much in 2000 years, etc. Yet, there is no mention of any important new approaches, such as one offered by Richard Tarnas in "Cosmos and Psyche" which moves away from the idea of stars and planets 'compelling' events, and more toward a holistic view that cycles of events on earth mirror cycles on planetary scales. Tarnas certainly has credibility as a historian of ideas, having written the bestselling "The Passion of the Western Mind". Also, he is an example of trying an empirical (instead of ad hoc) approach in certain respects; he does dissect the astrological ideas of the planet Uranus, ultimately rejecting any connection to the archetypal god of that name, seeing in this planet's cycles more the archetype of Prometheus. In that sense, he is at least attempting to see from an empirical standpoint, (based on events associated with that planet's cycles) how this 'new' planet might be interpreted in an astrological framework. It just seems that in general, there should be some short mention in the article of work such as his, that attempts to move astrology away from the clearly unverifiable and vague claims of the past, toward an exploration of what, if any, evidence there is for the resonance of planetary cycles with larger scale events on planet earth. I don't know enough about the subject to cite any other authors' work, but at least this would be a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.126.131 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This mirroring idea has been in astrology for several thousand years (i.e concepts such as Macrocosm and microcosm and then there is synchronicity from jung which appears to be roughly the same thing again). Like all the pseudoscientists, he does not use experiment to determine the accuracy of his work. I see no difference between him and other astrologers engaged in "research". IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that Tarnas does not do experiments, but neither do many theoretical physicists, yet they are still doing 'science'. However, I'm not trying to say Tarnas is scientific in the strict sense. What I stressed was that his work was empirically based. I suppose an 'experiment' based on his research would be to predict the general outlines of the next major aspect between two of the outer planets he studied: if the same types of events occur during that time, it would be corroborative evidence, and if they did not, it would falsify his theory. But again, it's not the experimental aspect that prompted my original post. Tarnas is trying a new approach, and I thought it should be mentioned. He also did extensive research on the Zodiac signs, and found NO correlations with events on earth, which is another facet of his work that bears mentioning as it relates to this topic. At least he will admit contrary evidence, rather than ignore it, as is the norm for astrologers. It's true that 'as above, so below' is an old doctrine, but this is not exactly what Tarnas is doing, and such a doctrine absent any empirical evidence is simply a group of words. It just seems to me that the article is not being fair if it claims that astrology is just the same old rigmarole, without any mention of recent attempts to make it more empirical. Gauquelin is mentioned and more or less dismissed. One could just as well mention Tarnas, at least with a link to his article, and the one on his book Cosmos and Psyche. But perhaps that is better placed in the main astrology article, rather than one focusing on the science, or lack of it, in astrology. I believe astrology is a pseudoscience as it has been practiced for centuries, but I also believe that any possibility for basing it on empirical evidence lies in the direction Tarnas has pointed to.99.9.126.131 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your above analysis. Things are being looked at in reverse it seems. To establish that some theory should exist you first need to establish that there is an effect and that is the most likely explanation. Otherwise there is nothing to explain. All astrology lacks empirical evidence. Gauquelin looked at many aspects of astrology with no luck and got success in one area which is minor (but treated as evidence for astrology by astrologers despite the mostly negative results). Some believe that the data set was affected by the reporting mechanism (parents reporting birth times which was common before the 1950s), and some note that follow up studies published in reliable sources found no such link.
 * For policy reasons. See WP:OR, and WP:RS, we don't mention things which the reliable secondary sources have not drawn attention to. I have seen no source in this topic area, astrology and science, which refers to Tarnas or says that he offers something new. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if the policy requires secondary sources and these are lacking, then the material will not be added. Although such sources may exist, since I'm not providing them I cannot insist on an edit. But i disagree that "all astrology lacks empirical evidence". This statement is vacuous without being conditioned further. And as the article states "Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict." This makes for an amusing 'falsifying' of a theory that is never clearly defined by those who are debunking it. Anyway, as I said above, perhaps a mention of Tarnas is more appropriate to the main astrology section rather than this one dedicated to its relationship to science. If his work ends up being important enough to redefine astrology n the future, there may be more of a 'consensus' among astrologers as to what their theory really is, which would make it easier to falsify or vindicate their specific claims, if such claims ever rise to the level of being considered 'scientific'. Thanks for the dialogue on this subject!99.9.126.131 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A small note on "Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict", makes the job of the astrologer looking for empirical evidence more difficult. It does not make it more difficult to state the evidence currently does not exist. Also the article already notes, "where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified", that is where concrete predictions can be gotten out of an astrologer they only work to chance expectation. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Shawn Carlson's study
After reviewing the study by Shawn Carlson I found that his was really a bogus study dressed up to look like science. First of all most of the astrologers backed out of the study and the 28 who participated in the study were not named our tested to see if they even were astrologers. Then the astrologers were asked to compare horoscopes of people who were not named and the veracity of the data for the horoscopes was not examined. We are asked to take it on faith that the participants were indeed astrologers with a extensive knowledge of the art. This is like asking random people who may or may not have taken a college course in psychology to match psychological tests with actual people. There is no confirmed data anywhere in the study, just some basic statistics that show that the people who claimed to be astrologers, 28 in total, were not able to match characteristics that are not really astrological with the charts of people who's birth data is very suspect. It is just a randomstudy of random people that Shawn Carlson claimed were astrologers because they may have been subscribers to the NCGR. No testing was done of the so called astrologers to even see if they knew how to interpret the data in front of them. They most likely were not experts in the field. No certification data of the participants is shown. This would be like asking grade nine students to answer advanced questions in physics or astronomy.

Brian Johnston http:thecanadianinstituteforappliedastronomy.yolasite.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.52.59 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Brian, Carlson used qualified astrologers and they successfully matched charts at a significant rate. Carlson made mistakes in his calculations. You can check his data, which was published in his article, but you must exactly follow his hypothesis. I've been trying to reach you for years. I like your earthquakes study and I have some suggestions for you. Please contact me through my web site. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Two astrologers making completely contradictory declarations about a paper so as to try and dismiss it. What is that an indication of do you think? Incidentally, a basic reading of the article would show that the NCGR recommended the astrologers used. All charts used were created by both the president and secretary of the NCGR San Francisco chapter. I suggest people look at our sourcing requirements WP:RS and relevant content policies WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ken I have talked to some of the astrologers and they were not qualified to the extent I consider to be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * nonetheless, what the carlson study shows is that a handful of individual astrologers were unable reliably to match natal charts with a personality profile, which might itself be subject to question. it is one thing to describe the carlson study (as accurately and neutrally as possible).  it is another to say flatly "where astrology has made falsifiable predictions," etc.  as though "astrology" were an agent.  also zarka is a nearly worthless source here and in the earlier paragraph, as his paper merely recites these conclusions in the course of a larger polemic.Zach bender (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia, repeating the conclusions in the course of his work is exactly what we expect. See WP:SECONDARY, Second Quantization (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dean's social effects are not an explanation of planetary effects
In the lead it states "It has also been suggested, by Geoffrey Dean, that the reporting of birth times by parents (before the 1950s) may have caused the apparent effect." and under the Mars effect, "Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin." This misreports Dean's views as he has stressed that social effects do not explain planetary effects unless it can be shown that the effects disappear when such artifacts are controlled. Dean wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer 26(3) May/June 2002 p.37 "the existence of social effects do not deny the existence ... of genuine planetary effects." This point needs to be clarified. Kooky2 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Skeptic Michael Shermer and astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong
The statement, "skeptic Michael Shermer, in a Double Blind experiment of astrologer Geoffrey Armstrong found that Armstrong's prediction of character traits based on natal horoscopes were accurate at a rate significantly higher than would be expected by guesswork alone" only cites a Youtube video posted by Jeffrey Armstrong. First: YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Second: the caption,"Michael Shermer debunked by Astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong" presents a skewed version of the events. Third: the readings given were somewhat general and the methodology for calculating percentage accuracy not described, worthy of pseudo-science but not science. I suggest this conclusion be deleted. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one test, probably not double blind (at least nothing says it is, so the experimenters could have unconsciously given hints) and done within the constraints of shooting a TV show. It would be considered statistically significant on its own (p=0.03 if we assume the hypothesis was the switched cases would have the worst match) but not if if considered among the number of failed tests of astrology. I would either take it out of note that this is a single unreproduced test performed on a TV show that's not double blind. Bennetto (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The material in question was added earlier this week by Horsechestnut, and it is inconsistent with the strong argument previously at the end of the lead, which should remain intact with the status of this article as a Natural Sciences Good Article. I reverted to the last edit by Nederlandse Leeuw. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. The sourcing is really terrible for this purported claim. Firstly, a video with 3 people under unknown conditions for a tv audience which has been subsequently edited to choose the most favourable part (presumably) and that's in comparison to the article which generally uses higher quality academic sources. If they are editing based on watching a TV show, they are doing it wrong. Secondly, Shermer does this sort of thing very often, 77% correct is going to happen sometimes due to random chanc. Considering that a "wrong" match was ~30% that's hardly convincing that it wasn't a statistical fluke. If it was an actual study, and not a TV show with deadlines, he would have been tested again to see if it was a statistical fluke. In fact, apparently Shermer says as much. They were planning to do another (better) test but ran out of time. Also, based on date of birth alone one can make guesses about personality etc at a rate greater than chance anyway (see Astrology_and_science).
 * Anyway, the claim about seasons is a common line people pull out. Astrological predictions aren't seasonally based, they do not line up with the seasons It's WP:OR anyway. Second Quantization (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Mechanism
I made a small addition to the "Lack of Mechanism" section to clarify a point that has always been a pet peeve of mine, both in terms of some skeptics overstating their case and in terms of defenders of astrology misrepresenting theirs. I do think it's important to note that certain observations made by astrologers (with regards to natal astrology) can in fact be perfectly valid and scientifically testable as such &mdash; but that the astrological explanation itself can nonetheless remain complete bunk. There most likely are correlations between a person's astrological chart and some features of their personality, and astrologers could exploit these correlations to improve the accuracy of their readings, but these correlations have absolutely nothing to do with the traditional notions of astrology. --Khgtcv (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "There most likely are correlation" There aren't. Don't make edits based on your gut feelings. No part of astrology helps in making predictions for seasonal biology and in fact there is not even any uniform predictions amongst astrologers (see the article). "astrologers could exploit these correlations to improve the accuracy of their readings" That would involve abandoning all of their system. Since astrology does not align with the seasons and has shifted with the precession of the equinoxes this argument is also utterly invalid. Do not add original research, particularly when its wrong. Second Quantization (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Come on Bird Brains

The reality that we experience is a result of all the various factors that mold and shape all types of experiences and manifestations. We can consider that the eigencomposition of the wave function unfolding from the past is the configuration of energy into the stable

and complex structures which we call matter. (eigencomposition is defined as the total sum of the the forces and characteristics of the field of the moment that is of its own peculiar nature- eigen.) Matter as a whole has very stable characteristics and as a result in most references the behaviour of matter is very predictable on large scales and only predictable through quantum mechanics on very small scales. On very small scales matter is very unpredictable and its behaviour can only be determined through the use of quantum mechanics probabilities. The eigencomposition of the wave function of the material aspect of reality is everything you see around you that is made of normal energy, dark matter and normal matter. On the other hand the eigendecomposition of the wave function emanating from the future is very stable on the very small scale and very unstable on the large scale. This instability on the large scale can be analysed and predictions made using quantum mechanics probabilities.

If we could stand outside of the stream of time and look at what this process is what we would see is that in the past we have solid objects, rocks, trees, animal people and planets. If we looked into the future we would see scenes and events and objects coming into existence. The two aspects of reality mesh in the now to construct the events that individuals and groups experiences. The parameters of the physical axis are very difficult to modify, but the events unfolding on the alchemical axis are more able to be modified due to the quantum probabilities of the Schrodinger equation. The events that must occur must conform to the parameters of the eigencomposition of the physics axis. The field of the alchemical axis is only dark energy. The alchemical axis is the reverse flow of time

now wavefront 4.png

The interactions of the two wavefronts results in what we see around us. The rocks, trees, buildings, planets and people are the raw materials that are woven into the scenes and vistas we experience and the events are co-ordinated by the probability wave collapses of the eigenstate of the Schrodinger equations. We can consider the map of the wavefront that contributes to the Schrodinger equation of the moment to be the horoscope of the now for the physical axis. This “map” provides the basis for the manifestation of events and circumstances as the future unfolds. The wavefront impinging the Now from the future is eigenstate of the future influences which are potential in the Now. The planetary configurations of the immediate future are the influences that play the most important role in determining the coordination and sequencing of events as they are experienced in the Now. As the astrological events are farther in the future, they affect the present Now less. However, important events will affect all events prior to the event. All events and the eigencomposition of both the quadrupoles must be tailored in their parameters and outputs to conform to the eventual fulfillment of the event no matter how far in the future it is if is an event which must occur.

. now wavefront 1.png

In the image above the red lines represent the probability waves emerging from the past. The curves represent the waveforms for each standard deviation away from the most probable sequence of events. the black line represent the alternate field lines coming from the future and the red oval is the the big rip. the red lines collapse upon the big rip at the end of time which then sends shockwaves back through time to the big bang as spacetime collapses and again wraps itself into a one dimensional state. If we also notice that the red (physical) wave function probabilities lie in the past, ie., low variability and very high probability of actuality. The black probability curves occur in the future and thus have high variability and lower probabilities of actualization. now wavefront 2.png

eisp.png

The Eigencomposition of the Past

It has happened

eisf.png

The Eigencomposition of the Future

It must happen

Each moment is a replication of the big bang and then the big rip as the wave functions first first emerge from their 1-brane state and expand into the 2-brane and unfold into the 3-brane which we experience as the moment of the now. It happens so rapidly that it is impossible to detect this continual transformation of reality. Each moment must make way for the manifestation of the next moment of the now and so must rip apart and make room for the next moment of the now. This we experience as the expansion of the universe and distance.

It may be that the whole universe collapses every moment of Planck time and then goes through inflation where the universe again expands into the vastness of its physical manifestation. It may also be that only the individual packets of energy, which we call particles and matter undergo the collapse and expansion. Regardless of which scenario is truth at every re-inflation the manifestation of the energy matrix expands slightly resulting in the overall expansion of the universe. Ever since Einstein and the cosmological constant physicists have been wondering just what this energy is and how it causes the expansion of the universe. At each moment of Planck time the Schrodinger equation creates an enhancement of the wave function with additional probable outcomes to the eigenstate of the universe of the Now and so must expand to accommodate the expanded probability wave. The Big rip has almost virtually zero additional probabilities and so the time waves emanating for the endpoint of spacetime seek to reduce the probability waves emanating from the origin of spacetime. Entropy increases until the end of spacetime when it collapses to zero and 1-brane and thus in that instant has no entropy which is inherently unstable and as time progresses entropy increases and so the universe must expand into the 2-brane to accommodate the increase in entropy and the increased complexity of the probability waves of the Schrodinger equation. As time progresses then entropy increases exponentially and the universe unfolds into the 3-brane and the general universal expansion commences and proceeds unchecked until the end time and the Big rip.

When the universe ends the pressure on energy becomes enormous as there is no space to accommodate it and this creates an infinite pressure which is sufficient to collapse all dimensions except for the 1-brane which cannot collapse due to the law of the conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. At each moment of Planck time the energy of the universe must collapse to accommodate the increase in entropy which is generated by the increase in the probabilities created by the increase in the moment of the Now’s eigencomposition. Entropy is the measurement of the unpredictability of the information content. As complexity increases the entropy pressure increases as a result of the increase in the complexity of the information and the decrease in the ability to be able predict how the information will behave. At each passing moment in time the probability waves from the end of time decrease in entropy and increase the ability to predict how this dark energy will behave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.205 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you consider to be research that disproves astrology?
The bogus claims of Coulson are beyond any reasonable understanding. Not only does that test two unrelated systems all of the findings are questionable. The positive results were purposefully dropped from the and every facet of the study is invalid. It is like you would test psychology by asking car mechanics to relate the types of cars people drive to their mental conditions. You cannot test apples to see if they are similar to oranges. The presumption is that no scientific studies uphold astrology. Obviously no one has checked Correlations, or The International Astrologer. this whole article is untrue and invalid. Of course newspaper horoscopes are suspect, but the so called science undertaken to disprove astrology is worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you consider to be the research that would suggest that the null hypothesis of astrology not providing any useful predictive capability be rejected? That is what needs to be considered. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a scientific study and does not even resemble one
Falsifiability

This section of the article is just a statement with no proof. I undertake astrological experiments and statistical studies alomost daily. It is sad that someone would put such a statement in that is merely just a statement and not even raised to the level of an opinion.

No puzzles to solve"

This section is another opinion and I am not sure where it originates. The rules of astrology have been progresssing gradually over a period of many thousands of years. If we read Tetrabiblos the astrology that is presented is quite different and much more limited than modern astrology. Astrology is constantly changing and astrologers do modify their methods according to the latest findings. However, the scientific studies are mostly published in members only journals, so to the general public it would be difficutl to see this and they might mistakenly presume that no research takes place.

Progress, practice and consistency

this section is just silly and makes no sense whatsoever. As per the last section, research is undertaken all the time and published in journals. I personally do change my methods on a regular basis to reflect the latest research. This section just seems to be a kind of diatribe by someone who rails against an unknown for them. Fear of the unknown?

Irrationality?

This is just another diatribe. Edward James is quoted, as if he shouldb ebelieved and it is not documented what spectific texts James is talking and about and the quote starts with What if?

Quinean dichotomy? This make utterly no sense.

Tests of Astrology

All controlled experiments failed to show any effect... What experiments and how are they documented.

Carlson's experiment

This has been shown to be flawed on many levels and entirely irrelevant, but it is included here.

Dean and Kelly

The results of Dean and Kelly are misreprented. The statement "Shawn Carlson, the physicist behind a double-blind procedure to test astrology agreed to by panels of astrologers and physicists. The experiment led to the conclusion that natal astrologers performs no better than chance." is just a lie. There were at most 25 astrologers who did not comprise a panel and Carlson may have consulted someone, but it is not well documented.

Other tests

This is just a repeat of Dean and Kelly's statement from above. The twins test results was never published. And thanks for telling us that sunsign astrology probably does not work. We know that.

Mars effect

There have been replications of the Mars effect and the statement included that says it was parent reporting is just grasping at straws. That is not how the French system works. The idea that parents would actually know astrology enough to change the birth times is ludicrous.

Theoretical Obstacles.

Until very recently science was not advanced enough to even begin to propose how astrology might work, so this entire section is not plausible. The whole section illustrates a profound lack of understanding of everything to do with astrology and astrologers.

Sociology

What this is talking about is not astrology. The Enquirer, for instance, would have a group of people sit around a table and make up the weekly horoscopes. None of them were astrologers and no astrology was ever used. 206.172.0.204 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice that the professional skeptics marked my observations on the article as soap.
All of the comments are on the various deficiencies, lack of credible sources and outright fabrications in the article. It is not a soapbox, except to undermine the salaries of the skeptics who get paid to knock down anything like astrology.206.172.0.204 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I found the WP:SOAP suppression device in the previous section a little curious in that context even before I saw the above. The section concerned seems to involve a collection of relevant comments on the article, which should be fine on a talk page unless a very strong case can be made against what is said, and just calling it soap bypasses having to do this. I should however add that I believe that in the main the prominent sceptics here do it simply because they love doing it, rather than as a result of being paid. --Brian Josephson (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Astrology and science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://archive.is/Sfvw to http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I *softened* the anti-astrology harshness of the statement I edited!
But the person who reverted it seemed to think — erroneously — that I harshened it.

So I don't understand why anyone would revert it.Daqu (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

AN OLD STUDY THAT REFUTES MANY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASTROLOGICAL SKEPTICS:
I want to tell you about an old, but very valid study that was conducted in 1952. This test was very similar to The Coulson Test that was very poorly conducted, and yet it was published in Nature and is used to the present day to denigrate astrology. In 1952 Vernon Clark, a psychologist from Evanston Illinois, made a controlled study where he examined the abilities of twenty professional astrologers. Clark was a psychologist for the US Veterans Administration. In 1952 he posed the question: Can Astrologers given only the birth time and place of a person describe that person in regard to profession, major illnesses and life experiences? Clark's test had three parts. 1. he wanted the astrologers to match ten charts with well defined occupations. Bee keeper, puppeteer, herpatologist, musician, art critic, librarian, artist, veterinarian, bookkeeper, prostitute, and a pediatrician. Result: the astrologers were able to correlate the professions at a rate which was significant at the 99% confidence level. Another group of non-astrologers were given the same data scored only at the chance level. 2. The astrologers were given ten random times and ten real birth times and were told to distinguish between the two groups only based upon short life histories of the real people. The histories included important events, honors, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Results: 2 astrologers achieved perfect scores, 18 performed well above random chance. None scored below random chance. The results were significant at the odds of ten thousand to one against the null hypothesis. 3. The astrologers were given ten pairs of charts. One of each pair had an injury at birth and suffered cerebral palsy. The other individual in the pair were educated who never had any serious illness. The subjects were chosen by other professionals associated with Clark and not by Clark himself to ensure that he was not being biased himself. Results: The astrologers were able to identify the correct people at a rate that was significant at the 99% confidence level. No scientific journal would publish Clark's results due to the fact that they supported astrology, but they were published in the magazine, The Cosmopolitan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.253.120 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

THE CLAIM PROHIBITION OF ASTROLOGY IN ISLAM?
The Koran does not ban astrology, so if there is a ban it is something someone made up later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS NOT ON ASTROLOGY AND SCIENCE, BUT RATHER SKEPTICS CLAIMS ABOUT ASTROLOGY.
There is nothing valid in this article at all. No science and no real comparisons. It is a joke.


 * I agree with you because:


 * 1. Not objective enough to be called science. It is a thesis.


 * 2. Even if all the astrologers who ever existed could be proved to be wrong, it still would not prove that astrology is false. It would only prove that all the astrologers were false.


 * 3. It would not be possible to gather the data to prove #2 above, so in fact we could not even claim that all astrologers are false. It would only take for one to be correct from any time since the beginning of time for that statement to be incorrect, and the problem is we can't possibly know because not every astrological prediction has been written down (and even those that have may not have been preserved). Then there's the problem that even if every astrologer up to now definitely was false, a true astrologer may emerge in the next 60 seconds. If you want to claim that you can see the future and that there's no possibility of the "one true astrologer" ever being born, then you're fortune telling or soothsaying, and what does science say about that?


 * 4. A real scientist would never make a claim that something is absolutely false beyond a reasonable doubt unless all reasonable doubt had been extinguished. There just is not enough data for that to be possible, because most astrology is done in private and is not made a matter of public record. There are many different forms of astrology, and some may not have been published, or are only published in a way that we can't comprehend (eg. Mayans, Voynich, etc.) Even in your own article, there are not enough data points to form a valid conclusion. All you have done is list a small number of known astrological investigations which are not all demonstrated to be entirely false beyond any reasonable doubt (and that's just from the ones you mention, not from the whole collective total of all astrology).


 * 5. Many scientists believe in the possibility of multiple simultaneous realities. So even if you were 100% correct in this reality, according to some scientific theories there would be some other reality where you were not 100% correct, and possibly even a reality where you were 100% wrong. So even science disagrees with you. And according to Schrodinger's theory, it's also possible for you to be both correct and incorrect at the same time. Ad infinitum.


 * 6. This is the biggest flaw... you've only studied *western* astrology. You haven't studied any other kind. And not all methods of astrology use the same mechanisms. So if one mechanism is wrong, it does not necessarily follow that they all are wrong. Also failure to understand how the mechanism works is not equivalent to the mechanism not working. A young child probably can't tell you why a freezer makes things cold, but that does not mean it doesn't make things cold. The child might make a guess that sort of sounds reasonable without being right.


 * 7. Some cultures were wiped out by European missionaries. Their accumulated knowledge has been lost (even in some cases intentionally destroyed by the missionaries). Therefore there is no way to know if their astrology was valid or not. You wiped them out, so you can't critique them.


 * 8. None of the reasons put forward by the philosophers are truly valid reasons for why astrology is unscientific. It may well not be scientific, but not for the reasons given. The philosophers based their opinions on assumptions about the mechanism of one particular branch of astrology with no way to validate those assumptions.


 * 9. Has any astrologer anywhere tried to claim astrology is a science? I think the more sincere astrologers would be more likely to describe it as a craft or a practice.


 * 10. I bet that many of you believe in the butterfly effect. I bet also that many of you think of this effect as a scientific reality. Astrology is pretty much the same thing, just with gravity instead of flapping.

หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
I've put the template since there is a clear lack of neutrality. I will try to find all relevant studies around the works conducted by Mr and Mrs Gauquelin; it seems to me that finally this effect has been validated by statistical analysis; so far,there is no evidence of a selection Bias. Please, try to collect the existing material but without doing a particular selection based on your personal opinion.--DERVISCH (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Scientific testing
The first paragraph states that scientific testing has not shown what??? This is spurious and is not supported by the latest research. This whole article from beginning to end is not truthful and not scientific. It is a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.205 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are unclear about. The first paragraph states that scientific testing has not found any evidence to support the premises of astrology, or any evidence that astrology practices work in any way. If the latest research shows differently, please provide links to it - that would definitely be of interest. Girth Summit  14:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Plausibility of effects of birth season on health and personality
It has long seemed plausible to me that astrological predictions based on the date of birth may have some predictive power, as the season affects food supplies, outdoor temperatures and prevalence of diseases, all of which may reasonably be expected to affect development. This effect would presumably be less when and where adequate nutrition and protection from the environment is assured most of the year, and would also depend strongly on the region of birth (and growing-up). Of course this has nothing to do with the stars, but could explain why astrology seems to some to work, though I suspect wishful thinking and confirmation bias have more to do with it. Searches like https://duckduckgo.com/?q=correlation+of+birth+season+health+and+personality throw up links such as https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205202510.htm and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101205202510.htm, largely in popular science magazines, I think. Perhaps it is worth mentioning this, as it provides an alternative to. PJTraill (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradicts Physics and Biology
"There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth in the way astrologers say they do that does not contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics."

There is no single proposed mechanism given by astrologers on which they agree. If there is no single proposed mechanism, there is no way it can contradict "well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics". This is an unsubstantiated, stupid and ignorant claim at best and malicious at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Astrologers tried to make sense of what they believe, their attempts contradict each other, and they all failed. None of their proposed mechanisms matches with any science.
 * Usually, astrologers can use their disgreements as an excuse - if one hundred astrologers predict things that turn out to be wrong, the other astrologers will say their colleagues were incompetent - but not in this case. None of them has a solution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources that list out all the proposed mechanisms given by astrologers and PROVE that all of them "contradict well-understood, basic aspects of biology and physics". Your statements are vacuous. If you have them, please provide a link. Until then you are displaying your ignorance.
 * The introduction does not need sources because if summarizes the article. And the section "Lack of mechanism" gives reliable sources, which say there no such mechanism.
 * Your demand is irrelevant. We do not need to give sources which say exactly what you want. The existing sources are enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Your last edit was pretty stupid. You changed "There is no proposed mechanism of action which does not contradict [..]" to "There is no proposed mechanism of action". So, earlier, it said that there are proposed mechanisms (but they contradict science), and now it says that there are no proposed mechanisms at all. That is definitely not true: there are proposed mechanisms. This is not contentious. I will now revert that. Please discuss first before making the article worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Removal of Subjects on grounds of Eminence
Gauquelin demanded the removal of certain Sports persons on the grounds of eminence. Here are the relevant sources -

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5CAxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=PT259&dq=ertel+eminence+test&source=bl&ots=R8SCrR4qT5&sig=ACfU3U2pqQoA4nutCW3AZPH3KDciL3_w3A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibtOGY0rnmAhVDxzgGHUPuAMEQ6AEwA3oECGMQAQ#v=onepage&q=ertel%20eminence%20test&f=false

https://www.skepsis.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/kurtz-etal.pdf

Anyone who reverts the previous edit, reply here - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, he had an excuse. But it was a bad one, and very arbitrary because his definition of "eminence" varied in different sports - according to what he needed to make the Mars effect as big as possible. If an eminent sportsman (by one definition) did show the effect, Gauquelin used another definition of "eminence" so that sportsman was included. --Hob Gadling (talk)


 * Thats what you and Kurtz say. This paper disagrees - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/52e7/f30c74dd07356752564199bb48324a1e47a5.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk • contribs)
 * Care to quote? The phrase "on the grounds of eminence" is a pretty useless one in the sentence proposed. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I quoted the relevant reference. YOU on the other hand reverted the edit based on your unsubstantiated whims before I replied here WITHOUT quoting any references. Look at the relevant links in the first comment in this section of the talk page. They CLEARLY state that Gauquelin wanted some athletes removed on grounds of eminence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you said that, repeatedly. Why do you think that that means it should be uncritically added to the article without context or citation? VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You tell me why it shouldn't be added. I have the relevant references. I can add the links to the references to the page if you wish. Either refute the references here or let the edit stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference you added is unacceptable because it does not contain a page number, so it will be impractical to locate the material in the book for those whom the Google Books link does not work. Also, bare URLs are not acceptable citations; the citation with full bibliographic information should be provided in the same format as other citations in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You tell me why it shouldn't be added. No, the onus is on you to establish a consensus for your proposed change. You have provided bare links, but you have not provided adequate citations for us to tell where this information was published. Was it in a reliable source? Assuming the content is indeed reliably verifiable, why do you think it is important to include it? It does not seem like a particularly meaningful phrase. For example, did he include or exclude people based on their eminence? VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No scientific support of astrology?
This is prescientific thinking and behaviour. This whole article smacks of skepticism, which is not science, but rather opinion. Please refer to these websites to perhaps craft a scientific approach to the subject. You will see that actually that main features of astrological influences have been scientifically proven, but places like this deny the public the truth concerning it. It seems that prejudice and fear are the main reasons why there has been no acceptance that the sky could influence behaviours on the earth. https://thescienceofastrology.yolasite.com/ http://thecanadianinstituteforappliedastronomy.yolasite.com/

There is no way for the world to move forward to attain a proper understanding of the universe if these kinds of sites which deny reality and utilize the thinnest of evidence to say that astrology has been disproved. In fact the opposite is true and it is time science woke up. This article whould be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.125.183 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are starting at the wrong place. Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. First, you have to convince the reliable sources that your weird worldview is right, that your peculiar definition of science is better than the common one, and that your empty rhetoric actually means anything. After you succeed, your opinions will end up here anyway because by then, they will be generally accepted. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am a scientist who is now associated with Trent University and claims like yours are like soothsayers supporting the claims of other soothsayers! Please read the tests and experiments on the web pages and stop pretending because this is Wikipedia that it is correct. You could reference the research of the German Archaeologists Ahnenerbe, who proclaimed the superiority of the German Race and that would be ok here! As you have a reference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.125.183 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Carlson test invalid
Carlson tests two different methods of personality analysis, the CPI and astrology and gets a 50% correlation. The California Association of Psychologists state that the best you can expect when comparing two different kinds of personality test the best correlation you can get is 25%. In fact the test for astrologers is much better than that and so is a resounding success! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.125.183 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

ASTROLOGY IS NOT FAKE!!
NOT FAKE wtff Anyone and (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Source 8 is not even remotely credible
Source 8, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-birth-month-matters-2012-7, is used as justification for the statment: "...the time of the year people are born has been shown to have a statistical correlation with the emergence of certain health and personality patterns" in the last sentence of the lead section. The link leads to a business insider article, which itself cites The Sun and The Telegraph (no specific articles, just the home pages of the publications themselves), one of which is a tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.7.75 (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it; it doesn't belong in the lead and seems to go off on a tangent unrelated to astrology and science. Some1 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)