Talk:Objective Validity of Astrology/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Astrology and falsifiability

The controlled experiment cannot be applied in all areas of science. For example Astronomy and Geology don’t operate in an area where experiments can be undertaken or done in a controlled way. They are still sciences because they make predication about the universe ( e.g. That stars will be found on the main sequence , or that older rocks contain simpler fossils) which can be falsified by an observation that runs against them. The observation should also be open to anyone who cares to, to repeat the observation to check it.) Astrology has not to my knowledge ever risked making predictions that lay themselves open to being clearly evaluated as true or false. Darwin’s theory predicts that we will never find fossils out of place in the geological sequence. The finding of a bed of mammal fossils in Cambrian rock would falsify evolutionary theory overnight. Can anyone give an example of a prediction made by astrology that is clearly true or false and that can be evaluated by anyone who cares to check it?Lumos3 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Tons and tons of them. Astrology makes tons of testable predictions. That's all it really is--take away the testable predictions and all you have left are some pretty graphics in a pie chart. Aquarians are expansive and outgoing, Capricorns are ambitious and success oriented, Geminis are highly verbal and easily bored, people whose Mars is in Aries are agressive or even warlike, etc. etc.
All those traits are applicable to everyone at times, yet it's easy enough to test scientifically whether those traits are more applicable to the specified groups than to a random sample of the population. After more than 500 scientific studies of astrology since the 1950's astrology gets a profoundly failing grade. Mystylplx 08:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the current page

This is really a mess. It's such a mess it's difficult to see where to even start in on cleaning it up. I was looking it over and have the following observations--

The How astrologers view astrology section seems to mostly be responses to arguments against astrology rather than a genuine description of how astrologers view it. This is awkward not only because the section is misnamed, but also because much of it is responding to arguments before they are even made.

The Arguments for astrology section only contains one argument which is the mention of Gauquelin's 'Mars Effect' study. The rest of what's in there would go better in the How astrologers view astrology section, or better yet should go in the main Astrology article.

The Arguments against astrology section is just as bad. The whole section could be much more concise.

  1. There is no evidence to support the idea that astrology works.
  2. There is ample evidence contradicting the idea that astrology works.

Followed by a brief summary of some of the numerous tests of astrology that have shown astrology is no better than chance at predicting anything along with a brief critique of Gauquelins study and including links to more detailed information.

All the stuff about gravitation, magnetic fields, etc. is really beside the point, particularly considering the pro-astrology people are not making those arguments. Given that fact those points become 'straw men' which the How astrologers view astrology section knocks down 'before' they are made in the article.

I suggest getting rid of all of that from both sides of the article. The question here is the validity of astrology, i.e. can it make accurate predictions. If it can be shown that astrology makes accurate predictions then it doesn't really matter whether it's due to magnatism, gravitation, synchronicity, fractals, or whatnot. If it can be shown that it cannot make accurate predictions those things matter even less. Mystylplx 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision in progress

I have begun a revision of the entire article here-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystylplx/Validity_of_Astrology

This is a 'work in progress' which is based on the current article. I would appreciate any feedback, particularly from supporters of astrology. The pro-astrology parts of the article are nearly complete and I think I've done a good job of making the best case in favor of the validity of astrology--in fact I believe I've made the case better than it had previously been made in this article. I'm just beginning on the skeptics side of things...

I should note that because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the skeptics that NPOV requires the article reflect that fact. There is simply far more data supporting the position that astrology is not valid than there is to support its validity. Yet for this to be a good article the very best case possible must be presented by both sides.

One particular area I'm requesting feedback on is I quoted Dr. Seymours book. It's a brief quote and Wikipedia allows "fair use" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements and I'm pretty certain this quote constitutes "fair use" but would rather check that in the forked article rather than posting it and finding I am wrong. Mystylplx 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The revision is done enough to post it. It still could use more work though.... Mystylplx 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • By giving the last word to the skeptics in the article you give them a privilege that is not enjoyed by the astrologers. Thus the skeptics can respond to the astrologers' side with regard to the Gauqelin evidence and Percy Seymour's theories, but astrologers do not have the equal right to respond to problems they see in the twin studies, Shawn Carlson (not "Dr. Carlson" at the time but an undergraduate student, and NCGR did not participate in the design of the test), sun sign studies, or any other of the skeptic arguments because these responses would come before the skeptics had make their case. This before and after argument does not hold water and is a bias that effectively shuts the astrologers out from responding as the skeptics do.
I think there is room for an "astrologers response" section following the "arguments against astrology" section. My understanding is that the NCGR did aid Dr. Carlson both in designing the test and also in picking out the astrologers... Mystylplx 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is good reason to place the skeptics' case ahead of the astrologers' responses, and here is why. The skeptics are the ones by far who do most of the testing of astrology for scientific validity. They have good methods but they do not know what to test and they do not consult with astrologers when they design their tests. Of course the tests are destined to fail. Astrologers should at least be heard on the validity of the tests instead of being shut out. In general, astrologers are not experts at designing test, but they know their subject matter and can see potential problems.
I believe most studies are done by supporters of astrology and not by skeptics. Dr. Dean is himself an ex-astrologer who advocated the study of astrology using scientific methods before he became convinced it simply does not work. Gauguelin was a supporter of astrology who over the years conducted many experiments and only those related to planetary position (Mars especially) seemed to show any validity for astrology. In the astrotest over half the questions on the questionaire were provided by the astrologers themselves. I didn't include any studies based soley on sun-sign, although I think those are perfectly valid.Mystylplx 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As your are setting it up, the article is very one-sided. Not only do the skeptics conduct invalid tests, but they also have the final and only word on the supposed validity of these tests, as well as being able to freely criticise the astrologers with the comfort of no possible rebuttal.
The evidence is very one-sided.Mystylplx 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep the skeptics' views last, which I do not recommend, then to be consistent with your removal of the astrologers' criticism of the twin studies, because it appeared before the skeptics' view in the article, you should also remove the skeptics' criticsm of what the astrologers say about Gauquelin and Seymoure. The argument that it should stay because it appears after the pro-astrology section is pure fabrication and reveals your bias.
I did ask for help from supporters of astrology. If you can make the arguments for astrology stronger then I encourage you to do so. Mystylplx 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


How about a section called Skeptics rebuttals to arguments for astrology after the arguments for astrology section.... this would make more logical sense anyway, and then a astrologers rebuttal to arguments against astrology at the very end? That way astrologers could have the last word.Mystylplx 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the new section Skeptics response to arguments for astrology and put the appropriate subsections in it. It does indeed seem to make more logical sense that way rather than having them in the arguments against astrology section. So if you and/or some other supporter of astrology would be so kind as to add the Astrologers response to arguments against astrology section at the very end then that would be great... Mystylplx 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'll wait until the rework settles a bit. Thanks for clearing out the irrelevant arguments. Piper Almanac 15:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Added Astrologers response to arguments against astrology section. Good format now. Added another paragraph on Comite Para's randomization challenge test, which supports Gauquelin's Mars finding, and is aimed at the skeptic argument later, so the skeptics need to rethink this. BTW the Comite Para kept Gauquelin waiting for I think about 18 years before he finally obtained these results, claiming they had not finished the test. One can appreciate their extreme reluctance to divulge their findings, because they falsified their own hypothesis and confirmed Gauquelin's. Piper Almanac 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gauquelin

Gauquelin's quote added to this article: "The casting of horoscopes provides a living to thousands of individuals and provides dreams to an infinitely larger number of consumers. ... [But] since the most painstaking studies have shown the inanity of horoscopes, there should be a strong rising up against this exploitation of public credulity" is worthy of discussion. This 1969 quote comes from Gauquelin's earlier astrology bashing period when he felt he needed to do this to gain acceptance among other scientists. While promoting his own discoveries, he attacked the horoscope columnists. Though he had tried every avenue and angle he could think of, he was unable to find any evidence of sun sign correlations, or even anything at all to do with the signs.

Although Gauquelin's sentiments from this period are quite strong, reflecting his frustration with both astrology itself and with other scientists, there are many astrologers today who agree in principle that some reforms are needed. They say people should take astrology seriously and study it instead of just reading horoscope columns. The way it is now, the average person does not take astrology seriously, though they think there is something to it. The reason for this conflict is because they are unaware of all the pieces that are missing from the complete picture. 24.141.55.141 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dean was one such astrologer who favored studying astrology scientifically and reforming it according to what was found. Unfortunately he is now an ex-astrologer because he couldn't find anything in astrology that worked. Mystylplx 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's important to note that quote came after he'd (Gauquelin) already spent years trying to prove astrology. Gauquelin was a true believer who spent much of his life trying to prove astrology. Later he commited suicide when it became obvious even to him that his lifes work was a failure. Even he admitted that the mars effect wasn't what astrology predicted. Later he conceded there are some older interpretations of astrology which do seem to account for it, but there are so many of those, and they are so contradictory, that this is hardly surprising. Mystylplx 15:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Gauquelin did not believe that his life's work was a failure. Even though Ertel had diminished some of his findings, he and Ertel besides others knew that he had validated major parts of astrology. Nobody, except for maybe his sister, knows why he committed suicide. He took an overdose of his medication, so apparently he was not well. Maybe he had something. His second wife was much younger, so maybe there were personal factors. He longed for recognition by the scientific community and that might have been a factor. Gauquelin did not believe everything in astrology. For example he was unable to find evidence for the signs, so he was not a true believer. He believed only what he could validate and he proposed a "neo-astrology". Unless you know something about Gauquelin's death that the rest of do not, let's not make assumptions. Piper Almanac 16:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that Gauquelin validated the meaning of the planets for which he found results. It doesn't matter so much where the planets were in the distributions, but that they correlated to success in specific professions, as can be seen in any astrology text. In Kepler's famous phrase, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 128.221.4.201 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I can anticipate the next question. Gauquelin's laboratory records are gone; a prodigious amount of work has vanished. Did Gauquelin or did he not destroy his laboratory? Was he trying to hide something? I think he destroyed the laboratory and here's why. First of all the data is safely stored in computer records, a huge task in itself, which Gauquelin personally supervised.
If Gauquelin had been accepted within the scientific community, which he longed for, then his laboratory would be preserved and treated with respect and openness. But no university today would treat his work with respect and thus it would not be received into a good home. After his death, there is no telling where the laboratory would go and Gauquelin's findings have many enemies.
An institution could accept the laboratory and never show it to the public again. Such things have happened throughout history, and Gauquelin had encountered this sort of thing himself with the Para Comite. With control of the original records, the people with the records could claim anything they wanted: that there were errors in transcribing the data to computer storage, or anything else. Nobody could challenge them without access to the laboratory.
It seems counter-intuitive, but destroying the laboratory would assure that the data was safe. The only way to verify the computer stored birth records is to go the birth registry sources that Gauquelin used. Piper Almanac 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Structural revision?

I think the current organization of this article is confusing. We have the respective views, then arguments for, then responses, then against and then responses to this - a lot of these things are bound to overlap (eg. an argument for astrology might be an argument against for skeptics, and both might have responses to it. I propose the following organization: A section on how astrology is viewed, what is agreed upon and where skeptics and astrologers differ. Then sections on the arguments, each with a presentation followed by answers and counterananswers. These could point to empirical test which would be at the end in a section along with failed and succesful predictions (with a comment on doing better than chance). Comments appreciated (I won't go ahead without support, obvisouly). Lundse 10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've put up a NPOV tag. This article is a mess, from the pseudo-discussion style presentation, so the bias in the text.I'm going to being work on it shortly. Jefffire 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is actually not as bad as it looked on first view. There is only a few changes that need to be made. Sorry for hyping it up slightly. Jefffire 10:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Knee-jerk reaction over...
The section "astrologer reponce to arguements against astrology" is very badly done. Even the title is pushing it. Rather than have chains of responces to responces to responces it would be best to just take this section out and put the comments within into appropraite preexisting sections. Jefffire 11:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Apology for hyping it up accepted. I've cleaned up the "astrologer response" section, and I'd like feedback if this does not remove the NPOV tag. If you think you can make a better organization then go ahead. Keep in mind that the controversey will continue and responses to responses will accumulate until next cleanup. Overall I'd say it's improving. Piper Almanac 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Still need work. There are entire sections of it which are more or less hand waving. If it needs to stay in place as an interim section till the overall cleanup is finished then that's fine but ultimately response chains can't be allowed to accumulate. Jefffire 09:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it needs a major overhaul in terms of rationale and structure. We're teaching the controversy not admitting the obvious. I think the intro should not begin "here arguments for and against" but rather "astrology is broadly considered a pseudoscience and where testable has not shown predictive power." The article should then comprehensively explain why and allow an "astrologers' rebuttal" at the end. Marskell 09:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That intro wording is perfect, well done. I'm dubious about whether final word to astrologers would be NPOV though. Jefffire 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion, if your up for it, is start a userpage and edit from there. Trying to overhaul this in medias res will be difficult. As for giving a word to astrologers, see the pseudoscience section on WP:NPOV. Marskell 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This issue is not whether astrology is a pseudoscience, but whether it has validity, which includes science but also goes beyond science in terms of astrology's objectives. I think "pseudoscience" is a loaded POV term and not consistent with broadly considered public opinion, and therefore highly objectionable. I've made the headings more parallel, as this structure was agreed to earlier. Suddenly it seems that this agreed upon structure, giving astrologers last word, becomes dubious NPOV. To avoid the response to response cycle (the mars effect in particular has this tendency), I could use the method I did earlier, which in this case would be to move the rebuttal to the skeptic mars effect arguments ahead of where they happen. That would force a clean up of the skeptic arguments. This seemed to work very well before. Piper Almanac 14:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the Mars effect sections from "astrologers response" topic to avoid a response-to-response cycle. Thanks for this input. Most of it was already covered earlier. Since it appears earlier, some of the "skeptic response" sections may seem incongruous and need clean up. Get workin' Piper Almanac 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've now done an edit of "how astrologers view" to keep it on topic and eliminate the handwaving criticism mentioned earlier.
I've now completed the cleanup and removed the cleanup tag. Thanks again for the pointers. Definitely an improvement. Hope you agree. Piper Almanac 15:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks much nicer but I'll not be able to look in detail for a little while. If I start kicking up a fit here in a few weeks time then you'll know I disagree ;) . Jefffire 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed two short, weak arguments for astrology that were at the end of this section: "Historic validity" and "Personal experience". These items are either covered earlier or are simply opinion.
I would like to remove the Seymour argument (as I did before, but it came back). It seems like pseudoscience to me and there is nothing in traditional astrology to support it. It is an unwanted target for criticism (including mine). However, Seymour follows a tradition that goes back at least 50 years of modern science trying to explain astrology through some connection of local causality. Astrologers just don't want to go there at all. Astrologers don't care about mechanisms of local causality. There's no cartesian/laplacian mechanism of local causality in Newtonian gravity or general relativity. These are just mathematical principles and models that work so well that they must be real. According to John Stewart Bell, there is no local causality, and I believe David Hume argued the same thing. Piper Almanac 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a qualifying statement to the Seymour section. There are two developments stemming from modern science here, Gauquelin and ideas like Seymour's. Gauquelin studied charts and looked for patterns. This is within the astrological tradition. Seymour tries to approach astrology from the other direction, from science and using some sort of mechanism of local causality. There is no astrological tradition whatsoever for this approach. It really does not belong within the arguments for astrology at all. Piper Almanac 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, someone didn't agree and my change is gone. I guess it is an argument for astrology, though a very bad one, and comming from the wrong place. Piper Almanac 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mars effect

Piper Almanac, I would like to know why a skeptic comment is out of the question. The paragraph in question rebutted the skeptic critique by pointing out how difficult it would be to do the study right - I think either this "defence" should be deleted (as it does not address the point) or a comment on its inefficiency should be in place. Why not?

And please cite the Gauqelin studies and how they verify the link (or at least give us enough info on this to make it possible to search on a second opinion on the data. Lundse 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not out of the question. In fact it was a good comment. It, along with the criticism of starting a response-to-response cycle, prompted me to remove all the Mars effect material out of that section. I moved the infeasiblity argument to where it can address its point (valid/feasible hypotheses--the point of this article is about validity), which is within the skeptic section. Since it was already a response, this eliminates your need to start your own response-to-response cycle, does it not?
I'll add some citations to Gauquelin books and other links. Astrologers tend to assume that everyone knows about the other findings because it's in the Gaquelin books, but too many people assume that the Mars/champion finding is the only thing that Gauquelin found because they haven't read the books. Piper Almanac 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Crucial errors of skeptics

In a discussion of validity, it is important to note where errors are made that affect how validity is judged. Astrologers do not believe that astrology should be judged by the same rigid criteria as physical science is judged. After all astrology deals with people, not things. If this is an invalid POV I whould like to know why. The following pointed argument was removed as being POV. Please explain why?

"Astrologers say that modern skeptical criticism of astrology makes of error of confusing astrological advice with prediction and determinism. Astrology is not a predictive tool driven by fixed universal constants or other concepts of predictive fate, as science is, but is rather a planning tool. It provides a means of becoming sensitive to patterns of potential, patterns of change occurring within the present, and where these patterns of behavior may lead. Astrology provides an awareness of options and choices, based on the experience of previous observations, by which one can influence goals, improve the quality of life, and create a chosen destiny." Piper Almanac 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, people are things. Secondly this entire paragraph is waffly hand waving that doesn't say anything concrete. Thirdly, it is also POV and unverified. Jefffire 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And, once again, ask yourself "does astrology claim to do better than chance"? (whether in predicting, guiding, anything). If it does, its effects can be measured, however much its method of arriving at its predictions/advice/etc. may be different from normal scientific ones. So unless it claims to do no better than chance, one cannot weasel out of the fact that its effect should be measurable. Lundse 15:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering how to reconcile the focus that skeptics put on prediction and the future, as if we are dealing with chemical reactions, and what astrologers do in the present as a means of promotion and prevention, as you might read in texts such as Rudhyar "The Practice of Astrology," or Tyl "Astrological Counsel" (not just my personal POV). I thought I was getting to something, but maybe not. I'll leave this for now. Piper Almanac 18:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I specifically mentioned guiding in my "post", if some life-guide does better when giving advice and, well, guiding while using astrological facts based on the persons actual birth data than when given some random wrong data, then astrology would be somewhat strengthened. If not, there really is no phenomenon to study or theorize about. We do not have to be dealing with chemical reactions to make tests or act rational about it. Lundse 05:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following:

"Astrology also relies on the notion of destiny, i.e. that future events are predeterminated, which hardly or even impossibly can be proven, and contradicts the notion of free will."

No source is cited for this claim of predetermination ascribed to astrology. At one time the Calvinists tried to associate their short-lived, strict views of predestination with astrology, and that may be where this false notion comes from. Astrologers believe that destiny can be created and influenced the same as goals are. This is not the same as fate, for example the astronomy, which cannot be changed. As seen in any typical astrology text, even very old texts, any single astrological factor can have multiple but related outcomes or interpretations. Most of these outcomes (except where for unknown reasons they happen to be physical outcomes like red hair) can be influenced by the interpretation or choices of the subject. The science of astronomy is a question of fixed destiny or fate. The application of this science in peoples lives, like many other applications of various sciences or mathematics, is a craft. These should not be confused. If you have no reputable modern source for this skeptic claim, then it does not belong in the article. Piper Almanac 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Need an edit of the following:

"Skeptics say astrology is a pseudoscience, which attempts to lay claim to the prestige of science without submitting itself to the discipline of the scientific method."

This is begging the question. What skeptic believe is one thing, but the second part of the statement (definition of pseudoscience) does not turn this belief into a fact. No source is given for the argument that astrology claims to be a science. Although there may be some misguided popular books on astrology that confuse the issue, or there may have been hopes expressed of a scientific astrology someday (such as by the likes of Dr. Seymour), no reputable astrology text or author makes the claim that astrology is science. This needs to be edited to remove this inference. Piper Almanac 21:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is one problem here, which is that atrologers say a lot of things. Some claim it is a science, some that it is science-like, some that it is a craft, an art or something entirely different. But astrology does claim to be a system to give guidance, predictions or insight - and it does not live up to scientific standards (such as peer review, falsifiability, etc.).
This is not a simple issue with a simple answer. Maybe we should note that some try to pass it of as a science (making a pseudo-science) and that others say it is something else. I'd like to know how many astrologers view it as a science. I believe, though I am willing to be shown wrong, that astrologers+adherents who have little understanding of what science is generally do believe it is one, and that those who have engaged in discussions about or been educated on science call it something else. Lundse 11:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your opinions, but astrologers do not say a lot of different things about this. Astrology is simply astrology, enough said. Astrology has been doing what it does long before modern science came along. Astrologers do not claim or regard themselves to be a scientists by virtue of knowing astrology. Have you ever heard this? I haven't. As I said before, I don't think you'll find a reputable source as required. Piper Almanac 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what astrologers regard themselves as. All that matters is that they make claims that can be scientificaly tested. Jefffire 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ, astrology is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To some, it is the Sunday paper sun sign blurbs, to some a way of choosing employees. You may have a distinct idea of what it is, but that is what it is to you and not the consensus or majority view. Your point is taken, however, about finding good sources which shows astrologers claiming astrology to be a science. I do not, however, think that you will agree that they are even "proper astrologers" nor that they represent the field... Lundse 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that it is a diverse field, but what they all share in common is a belief that they can make a prediction (about the future or a personality) with a greater rate of success than chance. Such things are testable. Jefffire 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The "prestige of science" can be withheld until the accumulated lore of astrology is tested to everyone's satisfaction. Please remove "lay claim" or quote a reputable source for this claim that readers can verify. Piper Almanac 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)