Talk:Astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Astrology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Archive
Archives
#before 3 August 2004 (from page history)
  1. late Jul 2004 - Aug 2005
  2. Sept 2005 - End of 2005
  3. Jan 2006 - mid-Feb 2006
  4. mid-Feb 2006 - End of April 2006
  5. May 2006
  6. Early June 2006
  7. Mid June 2006
  8. Early July 2006
  9. End of July 2006
  10. July 2006 - End of 2006
  11. End of 2006 - May 2007
  12. Talk:Astrology/Archive12


Contents


[edit] Research methods

Can we find a way to edit in how some astrologers find the research methods of the scientists questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive a poor newby, but I couldn't resist trying to get in on the action, even though I barely have a clue about your protocols. After reading the section on "Research" in the astrology article, I am dubious about the claim that Gauquelin's hypothesis about the "Mars Effect" has actually been "refuted". Is this in the new journalistic sense I've run across lately, where "refute" is used as a synonym for "disagree with"? Do the references cited actually refute Gauquelin's work? From what I know, reference #52 should not be included as support. Please see the article by Dennis Rawlins in Fate, (34, October, 1981). This whole effort by CSICOP was a fiasco, and a black eye to science. In fact, this failed attempt to rig the results against astrology deserve some mention in this article, since it shows that science is a human enterprise. Worse still was the attempt the organization made to cover up the initial fraud. I have not yet been able to find the other two references cited to support this "refutation". Any responses? Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying another way to post a comment on this page. Please bear with this poor newby. The claim in the "Research" section that Gauquelin's hypothesis of the "Mars effect" has been refuted seems quite dubious to me, given one of the source listed, with no further comment ["Since its original publication... which refute it...."]. I refer to reference note #52, the 1977 article in The Humanist. This paper has been thoroughly discredited as science, and so has the subsequent conspiracy to cover up the original errors and misguided claims. See the long article sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins in Fate (34, October, 1981). I have not yet had a chance to read the other two articles, but I now wonder if anyone else has either, or if it is enough that they attack astrology. Science is never served by bad science, no matter how seeming deserving its targets seem to be. Quite the contrary, when scientists misuse the status of science, they undermine the belief of the public, i.e., non-scientists.(Kevinl.8creamynougat (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Dennis Rawlins article has been addressed and refuted by Philiph J Klass. See the aptly titled article, crybaby [1]. 59.92.59.31 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Gauquelin was not an astrologer, has not become one, and he never will. As for the self-entitled "skeptic", all of them are just raw materialists and narrow-minded petits-bourgeoises. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical references

I was quite surprised to see no mention of Biblical references to astrology here, as I'm sure that these would be of interest to many people. Has there been a past consensus to exclude these? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know the reason for the absence of biblical reference. If there was any at all discussions previously also. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermeticism??

What's the deal with this novelty? I don't think most astrologers are hermetics. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful etymology

I suggest that the entire segment "(From Greek: etc)" must be removed and remain absent until it can be written by someone who knows for example the meaning of "nominative" and "genitive", or the differences between Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Etymological references should always be in the nominative. Wouldn't have taken too much to fix that, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.182.25 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed --- or at least I think so. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] definition of astrology: phrasing and implication

This has gone back and forth a few times between several people, including me, so I thought this might be the best place to discuss it. I'm new, so please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place.

The dispute is between the following two sentence versions in the article intro:

  "Astrology is often defined as the study of the supposed influences of the cosmos on life on earth."

and

  "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth."

I -- and apparently some others further down in the edit history -- favor the latter, and still others favor the former, on the grounds that such influences have never been proved and that there is no consensus that they exist at all.

I do not dispute this (and apparently neither do my predecessors). Such influences have, indeed, never been proved to the general satisfaction of the scientific community. This doesn't matter, however, because this statement is a description of a definition, and is not an assertion affirming the existence of any underlying reality.

To illustrate what I mean, as I tried perhaps too briefly to do in my edit-comment: I believe the following to be an acceptable example of a neutral, objective statement:

  "Theology is often defined as the study of God."

Of course it is. This is, objectively, a logically and factually true statement, because it describes a definition of theology. This statement makes no assertion at all about the actual existence of God (the object of the study).

Likewise, "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is a description of a definition, and is not logically or connotatively equivalent to implying that such influences actually exist; the sentence isn't about such influences at all, in fact, but only about defining "astrology."

That's the argument from one angle.

The argument from another angle is that with the addition of "...the supposed...", the statement is actually made false. Astrology in its own context is never defined as the study of "supposed" influences. In fact, one can't actually study "supposed influences." It's defined as the study of "influences." One can study something -- empirically or otherwise -- without knowing in advance whether or not it even exists: physicists do it all the time. Hence the definition doesn't imply the existence or nonexistence of such influences; it merely describes a process of study, and the subject to which that process is applied. Valravn (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the current phrasing is that it assumes that the cosmos influences life on earth. This is simply NOT TRUE. This is different from the definition of theology, in the sense that the "study of god" is a neutral statement. It includes both the study of god's existence or non-existence. However, a statement like "Astrology is often defined as the study of influences of the cosmos on life on earth" is not neutral, and clearly makes a claim which is false, according to the majority(scientific) view. How about rephrasing it to,
"Astrology is often defined as the study and practice of the hypothesis that the cosmos influences life on earth", or something along those lines ?220.227.207.12 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My whole point is that the current phrasing actually *doesn't* logically assume the existence of these influences. Also, the term "theology" doesn't generally apply to the study of [G|g]od[s]' non-existence; theology proper is pursued within a religious context, and this context does make assumptions about the existence of such a being or beings. (See the wiki article.) Its definition as "the study of God" is nevertheless neutral on the implication of a deity's existence.
If we universally applied your standard that anything whose existence hasn't been empirically proved can't be included in the definition of an area of intellectual pursuit, we'd have to refer to ethics as "the study of supposed moral frameworks" or to mathematics as "the study of the supposed logical relationships between numbers and amongst other abstract structures;" these statements are all making value judgements about the content of study. In particular, they're delivering the connotation that the content doesn't exist. The current majority (scientific) view is that no convincing evidence has been presented that would indicate any causal or correlative link between the position of heavenly bodies and events on Earth or in the individual human psyche. That's not the same as saying such influences don't exist, by the way: scientists generally never make conclusive negative statements, no matter how intuitively obvious they may seem, because (except in some purely mathematical contexts) negatives can't be proved.
All that being said, I never intended to get into an argument about the existence or nonexistence of celestial influences; just wanted to try and sell you on the idea that the definition isn't making the assertion you say it's making. I'm almost happy with your compromise edit; my biggest fundamental problem was the word "supposed." My only remaining minor issue is your use of the word "cosmos" - it isn't a plural word, and it doesn't have a "location" per se. Let me know what you think of my tweak. Valravn (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with your edit. I still think you didn't understand my objection. The field of ethics can indeed be defined as the study of "moral frameworks", as it deals with behavior based on actual morals which are empirically observable in human interactions. Similarly, mathematics deals with logical relationships which are clearly follow from the fundamental axioms.
Astrology however, has no such observable component. To put it bluntly, its predictions have no basis in reality. It's immensely improbable that the tenets of astrology are true. Therefore, to make a positive assertion that the stars influence our lives violates NPOV. For instance, if I change the thelogoy introduction to "theology is defined as the study of how god influences our lives", I'd have the same objections.
Anyway, I'm happy with the way it stands now.220.227.207.32 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)