Talk:Objective Validity of Astrology/Archive3

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

POV tag added

The skeptic assertion that astrology "lays claim" to being a science (or that by virtue of being regarded by them as "pseudoscience" that such a claim exists) begs the questions of what these claims are, where do they come from, who is making them, how reputable are the sources, and what is the basis for making them. Readers should be able to inform themselves through cited references to these purported claims and reach their own conclusions. Astrologers say that there really are no such claims being made by any reputable astrological source and that this assertion by skeptics is POV.

Citations are also need for the skeptic claim that astrologers change their claims. What are the original claims, and how were they changed? Who made the changes? Piper Almanac 15:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On astrologers claiming astrology is a science:
http://www.astrosoftware.com/astrolog.htmwww.astrosoftware.com/astrolog.htm
Search for "science".
This unsigned article, on a website for astrology software, does not say that astrology is science. It describes science as observation and that science theories are often counter-intuitive, so counter-intuitive should not be a basis for rejecting something. Astrology seems counter-intuitive. The article promotes scientific method, but says that astrology is difficult to test and requires resources that astrologers don't normally have. It points out that many concepts in psychology has not been scientifically validated. The message seems to be to withhold judgment about astrology and not make claims against it just because it seems counter-intuitive. ~Piper
"How can astrology be considered a science?" is answered and it tries to water down the scientific method to allow atrology to slip in. The website does want the possibility of astrology being a science, and such beliefs among astrologers points to the fact that there is no consensus among them on whether astrology is a science. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.avalonastrology.com/Curriculum.htm[[1]]
A school, search for "Scientific Astrology" or "THE INCREDIBLE ART AND SCIENCE OF ASTROLOGY" at the main page.
There are some interesting courses offered here, some on critical thinking with references to Ockham, Comte, Kuhn, Feynman, etc. The "Scientific Astrology" content you refer to here is about how to become "a skeptic of astrology who applies scientific studies in an attempt to disprove astrology"! That is a bit incredible, considering where it is taught. ~Piper
Yes it is. But that does not change the fact that they seem to believe that a scientific wrodlview can coexist with astrology. And it certainly does not change the fact that they write "THE INCREDIBLE ART AND SCIENCE OF ASTROLOGY" on their main page. You may believe these people are more bonkers than astrologists, but they are astrologists and the see it as a science. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nickcampion.com/nc/science/science.htm[[2]]
Claims that some astrologers claim it is a science (and others do not).
Nick Campion is a reputable astrologer, specialized in history. His aim seems to be to clarify the etymology and definition of science because it has changed over history. He mentions that it's best to avoid confusion and mentions Gauquelin, who did scientific research on astrology. Nowhere does Campion himself say that astrology is a science in the modern sense, or for that matter in any sense. ~Piper
"Some astrologers claim that astrology is a science" is a direct quote, you cannot possibly claim that this is not a good citation for the claim that "Some astrologers claim that astrology is a science". Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/[[3]]
Lots of papers by people believing astrology is a science.
This is an archive of links to many articles on scientific research into astrology and the debate between skeptics and astrologers, including the views of Dean, Ertel, Kelly, Mather, Phillipson, etc. It looks like it might be a good source for tracking the debate, but it is a bit overwhelming organizationally. It seems to cite leading and reputable sources. I didn't look at everything but I didn't see any papers by people believing astrology to be a science, as you suggested. ~Piper
OK, I take that one back, there might be only skeptics with a scientific viewpoint there (just liked the heading). Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.astrology-world.comwww.astrology-world.com
Check the google archive, search "scientific".
This is pretty obscure. I couldn't get to the Google cached pages. ~Piper
See below.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:QG-8Cr75ZA4J:www.astrology-world.com/mayomain.html+mayo+school+astrology&hl=en&gl=dk&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a
The Mayo school of astrology.
"...the aim of the MAYO SCHOOL OF ASTROLOGY is to produce students who can apply their knowledge of this age-old subject in modern scientific and psychological terms." This is at least linking it to science. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.education.nic.in/circulars/astrologycurriculum.asp
"there is an urgent need to rejuvenate the science of Vedic Astrology in India" someone decided, I assume they were astrologers and not skeptics... Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.mr-wizard.com/aboutastrology.html
Seems amateurish, but still shows that people believing in astrology sometimes believe that it is a science. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/101/story_10170_3.html
A columnist or something believing it. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that as long as I keep googling, these will turn up. I would like to know if any "respected" astrologers believe it, though - but the list of astrologers is spammed with non-notables. Lundse 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Reputable astrologers do not make the claim, and I see Campion's message as a warning to those who write about astrology not to confuse the issue. We don't know who made the alleged claim, certainly not Campion. There is no source so it's a moot point. I don't think you can get much mileage out of "the incredible art and science of astrology" as a serious claim. Maybe the science part of astrology is the astronomy, which you need to learn for astrology. There are lots of Vedic sciences in India that I'm sure you'd object to because Indians call them sciences. It's a different culture. If psychology is a science, then why not analyze astrology with the science of psychology? What's wrong with someone expressing the belief that science will discover some truth in astrology, or in the case of Gauquelin and Ertel, that it has already happened? Piper Almanac 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not care how you view Campions message - he claims that some astrologers see astrology as a science. How he himself views the matter, his reasons for stating it, etc. is blindingly irrelevant - it is a good source for the my claim.
I cannot for the life of me see what you mean by analyzing astrology with psychology and how that makes any difference. The basic fact of the matter is that a lot of astrologers swing around the term "science" and that makes it important to point out that it is not. The fact that you disagree with them hardly matters.
Think about it this way: is there any amount of links, quotes, etc. that will convince you that some astrologers claim that astrology is a science? Lundse 07:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the astrologers. I've been around astrologers for 30 years and have never heard an astrologer claim that astrology is a science. It's an illusion. You can use Campion and the other bits you've found on the Internet if you think they support your claim, but your argument's going to be embarassingly weak. More psychologists like Gauquelin and Ertel, not unqualified scientists from unrelated fields, should analyze astrology. Piper Almanac 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
So no matter the amount of sources, my argument will be weak? Lundse 09:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I took out the "lay claim" bit a little while age... Jefffire 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's good. Perhaps you could also clarify what is meant by "claims" so readers can understand where this is view comming from. You stated in your comment that all predictions are scientific claims. Piper Almanac 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Any claim to be able to do something better than chance is a scientific claim and can be scientifically tested. Jefffire 17:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It would help to clarify the connection you seem to make between the purported scientific claims of astrologers and their predictions. People don't normally associate astrological interpretation with scientific claims, so if this is what is meant then the complete logic of the belief should be stated without making unspecified and unsupported inferences.
astrologers make predictions -- all predictions are scientific claims -- therefore can be tested.
"If the scientific method is rejected then astrology must abandon all claim of being a science".
Surely this so-called claim by astrologers is not a direct assertion as one would expect from the usage of the term "claim", but is rather an inference made by skeptics. Claims have authors and are emphatically asserted. Who stated this claim? Who says astrology rejects scientific method? Where is this stated anywhere? Where is the source? Astrology rejects bad science, not scientific method. This is all very POV. List sources for these assertions, or change them. Piper Almanac 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the logic. Everything which astrologers say could be scientificaly tested. But they don't test them, and instead take things to be true on faith or flimsy evidence. This is why it is a pseudoscience and not a science. Jefffire 20:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You could state this as a POV, something like "Skeptics believe that everything that astrologers say should be scientifically tested. But they don't test..... This is why skeptics believe astrology is a pseudoscience and not a science."
I think astrologers could agree to this stated as a skeptic POV. I am sure that astrologers do not believe they are making scientific "claims" and consider "claim" to be inaccurate and misleading as to what they do or believe, which is interpretive. The interpretations seen in text are not claims but are samples and suggestions. Astrologers call their texts "cookbooks" and as we all know, cooking is not a science that makes claims, but helps the cook blend the right ingredients and bring out the best in the food. No one can cook well without skill. Piper Almanac 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a comparison that you want to use. Cookbooks have recipes. 8000 different people who follow the recipe for chocolate cookies (exactly) will get 8000 batches of cookies that are just about the same, thus verifiability and repeatability. Cooking, especially baking, can certainly be treated as a science. See Alton Brown for more details.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to call astrology a pseudoscience. Every description I've ever heard denies any claim to being a science and specifically denies being reproducible. Astrological predictions are always said to depend strongly on the skill, style, or mindset of the predictor. MilesVorkosigan 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

New edit responding to myself... I see at least one reference above to an astrologer stating that astrology is a science. Does anyone have a good handle on how notable (among astrologers) this opinion is? MilesVorkosigan 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "experiential" is a completely valid word. There's a good reason why there, currently, isn't a "scientific" validation for Astrology, yet. Their research tools are still too primitive. Read Michio Kaku and Brian Greene about "hyperdimensional space" and "the law of attraction". You'll see that the physicists are getting closer. Keep up the good work. Don't let the unethical under-educated debunkers, such as the Amazing Randi, snow you. Astrologers current claims are based upon EXPERIENCE. That's good enough. Andrew Homer 01:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, experiental is a valid word - what does that have to do with the price of eggs?
The "research tools" for science to check the validity of astrology has been around since the seventeenth century and are easily applicaple - do you know what a double-blind test is? How to use a control group?
You are the only one I have heard of who thinks that physicists are "getting closer" to astrology. And you have yet to answer me why (except for a whole lot of namecalling, which did not help).
Experience is not opposed to science. Science is a way of using experiental (empiricist, if you will) evidence in a strict manner, with controls and checks, to make sure the results reached are within the bounds which the evidence allows.
I will not respond to your last namecalling on your talk page, only say here that I would still like (for the fourth time) to know the name of the newsletter which you claim is based on astrology and does so well in forecasting the stock market - you say I should read a book. I have read several on science, now I'd like to read up on this newsletter - are you going to keep me from doing that by withholding its name or are you finally going to let the evidence speak for itself?
PS: I predict that you will not give me its name and that you will resort to namecalling once again. In that case, I will award myself the right to ignore your post from now on... Lundse 06:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean for this to go off on a tangent. I still think it would be acceptable if the skeptics clearly indicate that their criticism is their own POV, and not just make ex cathedra statements. Some of the statements could be qualified by "skeptics believe" or "skeptics agree". This is how much of the astrology side is presented. That way the skeptics can cite their own documentation instead of astrology documentation. However, some of the skeptic claims, such as "astrologers change their claims" or "astrologers refuse to accept the scientific method" would still need to cite reputable and verifiable sources. Piper Almanac 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Introduced 'for', 'neutral' and 'against' categories for external links in order to reflect the article's presentation. I realize that even this categorization may be disputed (let alone the arguments for and against the validity of astrology); however, I felt important that the links not just be mingled without any structure. This way it is a lot easier to see which links are important, what's missing, etc., and it also provides a quick overview for the first-time visitor. Since this is a first attempt at categorization, I may have misplaced some links, in which case please start an intelligent discussion why a particular entry should be in another category. Aquirata 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is better. Now that I look at it, I don't think the "Season of Birth and Human Longevity" link has anything to do with astrology and should probably be removed. I think you could start a new page. We could use a fresh look at this. Piper Almanac 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about the Season of Birth and Human Longevity link. On one hand, one of the claims astrology makes is that of a correlation between the birth chart and longevity. On the other hand, sun signs and longevity to my knowledge have no direct connection in astrology, although some broad inference could be made, such as, earth signs have have the most robust bodies and thus live longer. For this reason, I wouldn't remove the link for now.
Don't quite understand your 'new page' comment. Are you suggesting that we start a new page for discussing external links for the 'Validity of astrology' article?
What about the Case for and against astrology and Astrology and Science links? The former is a deep link of the latter since the rudolfhsmit.nl and the astrology-and-science.com sites are one and the same. In fact, the latter should link to rudolfhsmit.nl/hpage.htm as the introductory page at astrology-and-science.com is superfluous. In which case, should the former link be removed? Aquirata 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

The title of the article (Validity of astrology) doesn't seem to reflect what the article is all about (astrology from a scientific perspective). The validity of astrology may lie in a certain psychology whereby people feel they are being helped by astrological advice. Or it may rest with the symbol system it uses as applied to one's personal life. Validity is a big word to use when we only mean objective soundness. I would suggest a renaming to perhaps Scientific validity of astrology or Objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cites this one as "The case for and the case against astrology's objective validity are discussed in more detail in the main [i.e. this] article." The second sentence of this article reflects the same theme: "A case for and a case against astrology's objective validity are presented here." Aquirata 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If this happens, the non-science validity content in the pro-astrology sections can be removed. It would be better to leave inflamatory labels such as "pseudoscience" out of the article and just present the facts and supporting arguments. But if "pseudoscience" is going to be used, it should be stated as an opinion or belief. "Falsifiable" is fine. Any mention of "claim" needs to be supported by references that present clear and serious arguments in favor of the claim mentioned. Otherwise I don't think the use of "claim" is warranted. Piper Almanac 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally I like the sounds of Scientific Validity of Astrology. Jefffire 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer staying with objective validity as stated in the main article and the introductory sentences of this one. This would ensure that the extensive historical research done by Professor Richard Tarnas and others on the cycles of the outer planets would be included without the potential argument of whether history is a science. Important objective research like this needs to be brought forward. Piper Almanac 19:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This discussion raises three interesting questions:
  • Is there a difference between the terms scientific validity and objective validity?
  • If so, which should the article be discussing?
  • If not, which term should be preferred?
In this regard, the article about objectivity in the philosophical sense makes for some good reading. Good point about historical research, which further highlights the importance of the decision.
Concerning subjective validity content, perhaps an article could be started on the Subjective validity of astrology so this content could be moved over rather than simply removed (which would be a waste of previous effort). Agreed on 'pseudoscience' being an inflammatory label, any such references should be rephrased. Aquirata 09:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If properly sourced and attributed there is absolutely no reason to remove references to pseudoscience. There are many very prominant people who regard it as such and it is right to mention that. Also, personaly I think subjective validity is a very bad idea. It would more or less be an excuse to write any old rubbish as "subjective" truth. Jefffire 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, 'subjective validity' makes little sense in itself, none in a scientific discussion and confusses matters in an encyclopedia based on citations. I think this article should be split into two, explaining that astrologers can either:
Say astrology makes no claims and is only a subjective tool for analyzing one selv, giving advice etc. (and this advice is so vague/useless that it cannot be measured).
That astrology does claim stuff (this will happen, you are such and such, you will be more succesfull if you do X), and that such claims can be tested - making astrology a pseudoscience. Lundse 09:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, the term pseudoscience is highly POV and inflammatory:

"The term 'pseudoscience' appears to have originated around 1844 as a combination of the Greek root pseudo, meaning false, and the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge or a field of knowledge. It generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science."

"The term pseudoscience has been criticised as difficult to define. From a scientific paradigms perspective, the term pseudoscience may be a response by scientists to describe a perceived threat to their theoretical framework. Thomas Kuhn postulated that proponents of competing paradigms may resort to political means (such as invective) to garner the support of a public which lacks the ability to judge competing scientific theories on their merits. As mentioned above in this article, Paul Feyerabend argued that clear distinctions between science and non-science or pseudoscience are not desirable. In Against Method, Feyerabend argued that whatever rules science may establish for itself, successful science has always been done in violation of it." - both from the Pseudoscience article.

"Senior Galileo, your idea of a movable Earth not at the center of the Universe is, well... pseudo-religious," the pope may have said at the time. Hope you can appreciate the irony of the word 'pseudoscience', and why it is not NPOV. Aquirata 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

When there is objective, there is also subjective. Objective validity (scientific truth) is complemented by subjective validity (personal truth). Any personal experience has subjective validity and subjective truth to it. An example for subjective truth is this statement by Jefffire: "Also, personaly I think subjective validity is a very bad idea. It would more or less be an excuse to write any old rubbish as 'subjective' truth." The idea is to move out that content into a separate article, which is exactly what you are arguing for Lundse when making your comment: "... 'subjective validity' makes little sense in itself, none in a scientific discussion..." Aquirata 10:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we settle on Objective validity of astrology for the title? Aquirata 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Renamed article in light of majority opinion and no objection. Aquirata 11:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe Scientific validity of astrology would be a much more preferable name. Objective seems a little lame. Jefffire 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of the article really isn't what would be preferable. The "he said, she said" arguement and refutation structure is just messy and creates a massive amount of redundancy. I would like to reorder things according to the arguement, rather than the point of view, so that point and counter point are side by side rather than seperated which I think would look a lot better and allow us to eliminate a lot of redundancy.

It would be a big change but if people are hesitant I could create a test page to demonstrate the difference before putting it into practice here. Jefffire 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, why did you revert the recently posted clarification of the eminence effect information? This information was factual, had proper citations, and is of critical importance to undestanding the Mars effect. Citation frequency testing represents the most objective analysis yet of the data, as it eliminates sampling bias, either pro or con. This is a widely used statistical technique and has proved to be very useful in this case. Skeptics have had ample time to respond to the testing done by Ertel and Irving. If there is some reason why you think it should not be included, and I can't imagine why, please state your reasons. Piper Almanac 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, your wording that the Mars effect "has been objectively measured and scientifically validated" is sightly less than NPOV. If you want to conclude things like that you will need to draw them from reliable sources. As it stands the methodology of the Mars effect studies have been highly suspect so conclusions of the nature you were making are not acceptable additions. Jefffire 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it again, this time with the conclusion stated as the astrologers POV. I've added "The Tenacious Mars Effect" as a reliable source. There really is no dispute about the eminence effect that I am aware of. Of course anyone is free to argue or present facts (if there are any) to the contrary.
I'm interested in your structural proposal. Perhaps closer proximity of the statements can not only help reduce redundancy but also some of the obviously conflicting claims. I not sure how this would work, though. A test page as you suggested would help. Piper Almanac 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, What's your reference for stating that 'the methodology of the Mars effect studies have been highly suspect'? Piper Almanac has given a reliable source for his statements in How Ertel Rescued the Gauquelin Effect. Where is yours? His descriptions have been reverted by you without discussing first and without explanation. This is contrary to editing guidelines. You need to use the Discussion page before reverting effort by other contributors (except in cases of anonymous vandalism, which this clearly isn't). Once consensus has been reached, a new wording can be effected.
I would suggest a revert to the 15:36, 18 May 2006 version of Piper Almanac plus his two later additions. If you have strong objections, you will need to voice them here first.
Your structural proposal sounds good, bring on that test page! Aquirata 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You're confused over the nature my comments and Wikipedia practice. All I propose is that the scientific view point be given as a view point, nothing more. It is a notable view point and when properly sourced does not violate WP:NPOV. I shall endevour to produce a prototype test page by monday morning. Jefffire 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to the 15:36, 18 May 2006 version plus the two later additions. Perhaps Jefffire would like to clear up the confusion about his comments, or lack thereof. Piper Almanac 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire: While I look forward to your test page incorporating the new structure, the rest of your reply doesn't answer my concerns about the knee-jerk reverts. I would advise you to include information about Ertel's as well as the CSICOP and CFEPP studies in your new page to make sure the article remains NPOV. Aquirata 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm begining to remove some of the more obvious POV and OR ahead of restructuring the page. The page has been written in a manner that diverges quite heavily from Wikipedia standards so there will probably be a large amount of deletion. Discussion on whether the "Mars effect" has been scientificaly proven should continue below. Keep this section about the restucture. Jefffire 22:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done a quick overview and taken out some of the stuff that definately contravines regs. This article is currently in a bit of a state. Could someone verify the Red Hair section and give it a NPOV reword, please.
I've given the Red Hair section a more NPOV. The best source is the Astrological Journal Sept-Oct 1988, as stated in the References, though it was published in a couple of other places as well, including Above & Below, Fall 1988. The replication using John Addey's 1967 data, was published in Above & Below, Winter/Spring 1988/89. This is the only source that I can find for the Addey results. This issue also contains Hill's responses to F. Gauquelin and G. Dean's comments on the original test.
Jefffire, I have reverted your edits concerning the introductory paragraphs in 'Arguments for astrology' and 'Arguments against astrology'. The sections look much better with simple leading statements such as those. They are stating the truth and give a good summary for someone browsing the article. Aquirata 10:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The introductary paragraphs are deeply POV. I will reword them, but I recommend outright removal as they are redundant. Jefffire 10:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, Would you please stop messing around with the article? Aquirata 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not "messing around" with the article, I am attempting to make much needed NPOV rewords and requestion verification as per WP:V. Please be more civil, describing edits are "messing around" is not a constructive method in a collaborative project. Jefffire 11:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are effecting major changes without discussion; reverting important additions within mninutes; doing the same changes over and over again despite obvious signs of discontent on the Talk page. Discuss first: [4]."Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." Aquirata 12:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Content

Mars Effect

The recent changes are extremly POV. It is not acceptable to say that a study that is regarded as fataly flawed showed that the Mars effect exists. Many repeat studies have shown no effect and it was mathamaticaly demonstrated that the original sample was non-random. Please read some of the skeptical literature on the topic befor insisting on things which aren't true. Jefffire 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read How Ertel Rescued the Gauquelin Effect before making any further comments on the Mars effect. Then cite a publication that shows the flaws in that paper. Regardless whether bias or non-randomness had existed in the original data, Ertel has demonstrated the 'eminence effect', which Gauquelin had never mentioned and thus couldn't have introduced any bias whatsoever in the data intentionally or unintentionally. You may regard a study 'fatally flawed', but that remains your POV until you can cite reliable sources that agree with that (so far) subjective view. Aquirata 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You need to cite from a reliable source. What you have provided is effectively worthless. Jefffire 10:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion. Any sources you can cite to strengthen that point of view? Aquirata 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Burden of evidence is on you. Jefffire 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Jefffire, you have a burden of evidence to support your POV of "worthless" Piper Almanac 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you have to use reliable sources. Papers from unreliable sources are not consider appropriate for inclusion since anyone can say and write anything. The Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that the burden here is upon the astrologers. Jefffire 17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Nick Kollerstrom is a well recognized British astrologer. This article comes from Correlation, an established and reliable journal of research into astrology. The article itself contains numerous reliable sources. Piper Almanac 18:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Astrological journals are not reliable sources. Please use scientific or mathamatical journals. Jefffire 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a peer reviewed journal that has been going for more than twenty years. It's reliable. Piper Almanac 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. You must cite something of this nature from scientific journals. Astrology journals are not regarded as reliable. Jefffire 23:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is an untenable statement. You are presupposing that astrology is objectively invalid therefore any astrological source must be unreliable. Senior Galileo, your arguments must rest on the Bible and other approved religious sources. The reality on the other hand is that astrological magazines in the context of astrology are reliable sources.

Your position is called scientism [5]. Given your heavy bias against astrology, do you think you can do a good job in editing this article? Aquirata 10:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrological magazine do not utilise the same strict criteria of peer review that a mathamatics of science journal does. If it did then it would be a science journal. If you cannot find the information from a reliable source then it has to be removed. This is Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 10:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are mistaken about astrological magazines, and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy at the same time.
My position is that they are not reliable sources of scientific information. Do you dispute this? Jefffire 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you have stated that you cannont get references from reliable sources then there will be no choice but to remove the unsupported information. Jefffire 13:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I will end this discussion now. I've included the source of Ertel's orginal paper, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Correlations article is easily within the Wikipedia guidelines of a scholarly secondary source and cites the original paper. If anyone wants to dispute the results of Ertel's work they will have to provide reliable sources that cite the work.
Jefffire, what's your reason for saying that "you have stated that you cannont (sic) get references from reliable sources"? Nobody said that to my knowledge. Also, when others are not coming forward with references from what you deem reliable sources, your duty is not the removal of allegedly unsupported information but finding that 'reliable' source. I repeat my question above, which you have not yet answered: Given your heavy bias against astrology, do you think you can do a good job in editing the Validity of astrology article? Other editors strive to present a balanced picture; on the other hand, you seem to be intent on destroying the case for astrology using any means whatsoever. The problem I see in your present involvement in editing this article is not that you have a point of view but that you seem to have a personal agenda to distort the article's presentation to the extreme. We need your perspective so we can present the article in a neutral manner, but please do not use your persuasion for political ends. Aquirata 10:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

More needs to be said about the skeptic claim of the Zelen test. Pleas give specifics as to the method and findings of this test that convinced the testers that they had found bias. Also please cite sources that respond to Ertel's finding of Gauquelin's predicted Mars eminence effect in the Zelen and CFEPP samples. Piper Almanac 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, the inability of finding something is not proof of its non-existence; it only gives weight to an argument. Can you see the moons of Jupiter with the naked eye? No. Do they exist? Yes. If you have a philosophical problem with this, I suggest you argue this first on philosophy pages. Do not be a nuisance by reverting sensible changes without discussion. Aquirata 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The sheer scope of the study rules out a Mars effect amonst French atheletes. This is science, not maths. Philosphical sophistery does not change this. Jefffire 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try to keep an open mind. You are again reverting changes without sound discussion. I am not arguing that there is a Mars effect for French athletes; we are dealing with a statement of fact: one research project not finding something is not equivalent to proof of non-existence regardless of scope. If you have an understanding of scientific research, you will quickly see that this is a factual statement. You simply cannot argue about this. Hence the wording rules out is incorrect. Aquirata 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the most reliable and respected study on the matter. The large size and strict protocols are sufficient to justify the statement. Jefffire 17:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, please clarify the Benski reference. Aquirata 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, my mistake. I have corrected the buried Benski reference and removed the verify tag. Wasted effort could have been saved with a little help. Aquirata 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The scientific basis of astrology

This is a significant book because it is the only one that proposes a potentially viable physical explanation. The fact that Dr Seymour is the only author representing the idea of 'electromagnetic astrology' publicly is no reason for exclusion. Many great scientists could have been (and were!) excluded for going against the grain single-handedly. Aquirata 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The hypothesis doesn't hold any water at all since astrological teaching make no distinction as to which side of the sun objects are on, which would create vast differences in his mechanism. It is also not supported by evidence or theory. It is non-notable due to the extreme finge nature. The fact that some fringe hypothesis have turned out to be correct is irrelevent, notability is still a very important Wikipedia criterion. Jefffire 09:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken regarding astrological teachings. Next time you should cite references before making sweeping statements about astrology. You are of the opinion that Dr Seymour's theory is not suppported by evidence. What are your sources? The book is mentioned in the main Astrology article. It is also part of references at [[6]]. The online version of Times magazine thought the book important enough to carry a review [[7]]. The sci.skeptic/[alt.astrology] Papers FAQ lists 5 books as reference, one of them is this book. The Skeptic Bibliography's What's New page includes this book. The list goes on and on. I am reverting your edit. Aquirata 10:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not a notable part of astrology. It is also unadulterated nonsense and adds nothing to the arguement. Jefffire 10:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion. Any sources you can cite to strengthen that point of view? Aquirata 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As before, the burden of evidence is on you to verify that this is notable within the astrological community. Jefffire 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As just demonstrated, the book is relevant to the article, whether relevant or not to the astrological community. Piper Almanac 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Restored this topic. I personally don't agree with this topic either, but it is an attempt to scientifically objectify astrology. Seymour's line of reasoning now has a history spanning at least 50 years and this cannot be ignored. Skeptics and astrologers both have their chance to criticise the theory. Piper Almanac 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the validity of astrology, not potential mechanisms. Seymours work would be better in a hypothetical proposed mechanisms of astrology, not here. Jefffire 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be included in an article on theories of astrology. Piper Almanac 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't support a removal of this. If you had to write an article about the objective validity of gravity, would you remove the theoretical basis for your arguments? I'm not saying that Seymour provides a theoretical basis, but his arguments are among the few that may explain some parts of astrology. You cannot compare the state of astrology to the state of accepted science in general due to absolutely no development for 2-300 years, when science was born and developed. If astrology is to become a science (or at least parts of it), then you have to give it the benefit of doubt and perhaps a few hundred years to establish its academic institutions, funding, proper research, etc. You are trying to kill an infant on the basis that he cannot fly a plane. Aquirata 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, astrology has been around for many times longer than any of the sciences. It is hardly an infant. Secondly, this book does not present any kind of rational theory. The proposed mechanism is so fraught with inconsistancies that there is no way it could be correct. Thirdly, personally, I'm not willing to wait a few hundred years before editing this article further. This article is not about proposed mechanism and doesn't need them. Removal is the only answer. Jefffire 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in complete agreement with putting it back in, given the controversial nature of this article. Skeptics tend to be test and results minded and concerned with the purity of practices and beliefs. Including theory that has no tests is neither here nor there and so might cloud the focus of this article. It's a little too much at this point. Piper Almanac 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The objection has been noted, let's discuss further. The original state was restored and should be kept until an agreement is reached here.
Jefffire: Please stop making major changes before discussing first. Your behaviour demonstrates a political agenda. Why don't you use your scientific mind for something useful? Aquirata 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You are the only person still wanting this section, even though it explicately says in the intro that the article is not about potential mechanisms. You do not have a leg to stand on in this discussion. Additionally, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. They are against Wikipedia policy. Jefffire 11:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a further note about the mistaken notions presented above.

  • Astrology has been around for many times longer than any of the sciences. Oh really? Astronomy was an integral part of astrology from day one, just not articulated as a separate science. When did the bulk of developments occur in astronomy? I would think the past 300 years. Nothing happened in astrology from the sevententh century to well into the twentieth century. In effect, it missed the most significant developmental period of science (as we understand this word today). The experiments of the twentieth century in astrology can be equated to the period when most modern sciences were born.
  • This book does not present any kind of rational theory. What part of the theory is not rational in your view? Which proposed mechanism in science was perfect when it first came out?
  • I'm not willing to wait a few hundred years before editing this article further. That's reassuring. So then please edit the article and not butcher it.
  • This article is not about proposed mechanism and doesn't need them. That's your view. Presentation of a workable hypothesis of some kind of a mechanism that would support astrology undermines your belief that astrology is not an objectively valid discipline. That's fine. But don't confuse this with what the article is about. If somebody in the 19th century had had the crazy idea of say the uncertainty principle, would you have wanted to see some kind of rationalization or 'mathematical mechanism' in support of this? Just because one refuses to look into the telescope, it doesn't follow that the Jupiter doesn't have moons.
  • Removal is the only answer. For you perhaps, but for editors of Wikipedia editing is the only answer. "Editing policy: Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible." WP:LOP Aquirata 11:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in the introduction says what you imply. The 'no mechanism required' is simply an argument of astrologers. Again, do not destroy but edit. What is your proposal other than removal?
"The issue in this article of objective validity concerns evidence, or its lack, of testable predictions or historical contributing factors; and not other concepts of validity such as any real or perceived benefit derived from receiving astrological advice, its validity as a cultural phenomenon, possible mechanisms, or the like.".
It was right there, in the intro. It is not possible to avoid removing it. It's only home would be Proposed mechanisms for astrology. Jefffire 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You have to reach consensus before effecting major change. The intro didn't include the phrase 'possible mechanisms'. Aquirata 14:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Possilbe mechanisms are beyond the scope of this article. You have not provided any rational reason to keep this flimsy section in. You do not have the support of other editors in this. It appears that consensus has been reached and that it is for removal. Jefffire 15:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on you to provide explanation why this section needs to be removed, and then gather support. This hasn't been done. As far as I can see, other than you, nobody else is supporting deletion of this section. There are two editors opposing it. Aquirata 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Piper is not in favour of putting it back either. It is beyond the scope of the article as defined. Please try actualy reading that intro and the talk page. Jefffire 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep it in. Sorry but I've changed my mind. If you google Percy Seymour this is the first hit. This idea of electromagnetic fields has a history and should be included in Wikipedia. It should not be split off and orphaned. Until someone creates a new article where it can live, this is where it belongs. Piper Almanac 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Case closed? Aquirata 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The the section is still not appropriate for the article. It will be saved in the Wikipedia servers' history files even if deleted here for a long time. If and when a home becomes available then it goes there. We do not need to provide a home where it does not fit. Jefffire 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am open to rewording but not removal. This is very relevant to the article. Sorry. Aquirata 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The article specifically says it is not about potential mechanisms. You have no leg to stand on here. Jefffire 23:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a relevant argument. While no explanation of mechanism is required for astrology to be considered objectively valid, the case for astrology's objective validity is strengthened by providing one. Aquirata 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is outside out the remit of the article. The book has been proven to be based on faulty assumtion and reasoning. It provides nothing to the question of validity. Jefffire 15:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Case was closed by majority opinion. Stop muddling in the article. Aquirata 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. I have shown, proved even, that the section is beyond the scope of the article. You have not provided a rational response. Two astrologers do not represent a consensus. Jefffire 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Shown and proved to yourself? Aquirata 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Lundse, you will need to come here before making major changes to the article. As it stands now, we are 2-1 against removing the section. Aquirata 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Since all I see is knee-jerk reverts and no rational arguments, I am restoring this long-standing topic. Having this subsection is the status quo, guys, like it or not. Please make or propose changes if you don't like this the way it stands - any fool can delete others' hard earned work. Aquirata 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no rational arguments on your part, so... Jeffire's argument is this:

  • this article is about the validity of astrology
  • validity is a seperate issue from having a proposed mechanism for an effetct
(it is about whether there is one and whether you can make falsifiable predictions)
  • therefore an article on a proposed (not even a part of astrology) mechanism should be left out.

This is obvious from the above and your claim that there is no rational argument going on (and saying that there is a consensus from 1 for, 1 against and (at the time) 1 undecided) is bad faith. But let us discuss it, do you see a problem with either premise or the structure of the argument? Lundse 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have provided my thoughts on the above already, so let me repeat them:
  • Validity is a seperate (sic) issue from having a proposed mechanism for an effetct (sic): While no explanation of mechanism is required for astrology to be considered objectively valid, the case for astrology's objective validity is strengthened by providing one.
If this is the only argument for removal, then it has been answered on the 23rd. If there was a separate topic called The theoretical basis of astrology or something similar, I would be open to simply reference this work here and move the content over. But it is a significant piece in support of astrology (which is not equivalent to saying that I believe Seymour's arguments), and therefore should not be removed.
Since the subsection is a long-standing part of the article, we would need a large majority for changing the status quo. I see the opinion on this issue is currently divided (and again, the low participation doesn't exactly validate this statement, but this is the best we can do). If I said there was consensus for keeping the section, my wording was less than exact; what I meant was that there was no consensus for removal. Aquirata 10:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that Jefffire insists on deletion rather than talking it out on the Talk page. I have answered your only objection, the editors are divided on this issue, so what's the reason for the revert? Aquirata 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It is and remains outside of the remit of the article. It is specifically mentioned in the intro that possible mechanisms are not to be mentioned in the article. I have also seen no evidence this book is notable and it seems to be as scorned within the astrological community as it is within the scientific community. You are free to move it to a different article where it would fit, or to start your own Wiki where you could do as you liked and write about it there. But there is no reason to include it here. Jefffire 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Restored this subsection. It should remain until we find a better place for it. See Cleanup and Merge for details. Aquirata 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Hair

Is this notable? I have not heard it discussed elsewhere with regards to astrology. Jefffire 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can verifiy this as notable from a reliable source it will be removed. Jefffire 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The topic is certainly very relevant: the connection of Mars to the colour red has been noted for ages. Aquirata 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Not the topic, the study. Is it notable? Can it be verified from a reliable source? Jefffire 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm researching this now. Give me some time. By what I've seen so far, it looks like a legitimate study. Piper Almanac 17:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to ask for a response soon. I have strong doubts on the notability and reliability of the study. Jefffire 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It needs to remain visible. Goeffrey Dean has written about this study in a letter to the FAA Journal, but that is not enough. Potential contributors can see the "needs citation" tag and will help look for the sources. Piper Almanac 16:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have supplied three sources for this article. The three leading astrology journals in the English language all published it. Two of them are member society supported. These are reliable sources as defined in the Wikipedia guidelines and the verify tag should be removed.

These are most certainly not considered reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources. Jefffire 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to track down a Correlations article; waiting to hear back. The original article in the astrological journals was commented on by Geoffrey Dean and François Gauquein, providing a sort of post publication peer review. There was nothing very notable in these comments. Piper Almanac 13:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubts about reliability of the sources aside for one moment, can you verify that these studies are notable? (ie. you need to show that they have had a relatively significant impact on the astrological and/or scientific community) Jefffire 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

References

This section is badly in need of updating. I have added some of the more important works concerning the scientific exploration of astrology. Aquirata 11:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Are they from reliable sources. Articles from unreliable sources should not be included. Jefffire 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
They are landmark books, not articles. Aquirata 12:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevent. Are they reliable sources? Jefffire 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
They are the most reliable sources you will find on astrological research. Aquirata 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-sensical edits and comments by Jefffire

This user is going around and butchering the article several times an hour, frequently reverting edits within a few minutes of changes made by other editors. Reverts are made without warning or explanation. Important sections and paragraphs are being removed without discussion. He questions every reference other user cites but provides no reference of his own. I am asking the community now to find a way to effectively deal with this person. Aquirata 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rewording the introductions to the for and against section. As they stand they are needlessly long, POV an make points which should be included within the section. I also contest the notability of the "Red Hair" study and the reliability of the sources. I ask that it be properly sourced and verified as notable. Jefffire 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Let me think this over, and also see what others have to say. Aquirata 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please bear WP:Civility in mind before making future comments. Jefffire 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
How about civility in editing? Aquirata 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are having trouble maintaining civility then I recommend a careful reading of Wikipedia's civility policies. Please contribute with a cool head. Jefffire 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Who says we don't have fun? :) Piper Almanac 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Research

I've revised this section on Richard Tarnas's work to be more factual and encyclopedic. I think it's improved. Piper Almanac 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it has. Good job! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's a bit misleading. One of the basic principles of analysis is that 'Correlation is not causation'. Does the study also look into times when the planets were in conjunction and nothing notable happened? MilesVorkosigan 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The author makes no claim of causation. There is no need to. In principle synchronicity does not claim causation. There is something notable happening at all the conjunctions. Piper Almanac 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Carlson Test

I've reinstated the complaint against the Shawn Carlson test. It's important to put this frequently cited test into proper context. Piper Almanac 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed Predictions

Removed unnecessary citation needed tag. I hate to use this as an example, but go to your nearest bookstore and pick up any popular astrology magazine like Dell Horoscope. You'll find astrological analysis of recent disasters and other significant events. You'll find analysis of underlying patters of ongoing cycles. Piper Almanac 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Then cite them. Jefffire 23:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've rewritten this. The real point here is that outright predictions of specific events is not what astrology is really about. Piper 19:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The associations made in the rewritten introduction are unacceptable. Astrology is primarily an organizing tool and organizing tools do have some predictive capability. But objective validity is not only about prediction or science, so this part is misrepresented. Evolutionary science and a good part of biology are useful mainly for their organization of knowledge. They have great objective validity because they allow us to understand how things fit into patterns. It is these patterns that enable us to look for clues to fill gaps in our understanding. This idea of organization and patterns is closer to what astrology is and tries to do. Piper Almanac 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does not talk about causality, so it doesn't belong in the intro and was removed. It needs a NPOV intro based on the work done in the article. Piper Almanac 19:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the validity of astrology and that is what the introduction lays out. Now the intro mentions that no demonstration of causation is needed as proof of validity and this is fine because it seems many astrologers would agree. I am also very curious why the strictly introductory parts have been removed, especialy after the fuss about my simplification of the section introduction. As it stands now it does not give sufficient introduction at all to the article. Jefffire 00:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that good intro is needed. The present wording is still somewhat biased, however. Aquirata 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
See how you like my version. Aquirata 11:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a fairly good reword. Jefffire 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - we can actually agree on something then? :) Aquirata 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I included the example of history in the introduction because history has objective validity and is central to the astrological process of discovery. I had to remove "complex system of archetypal symbols" because any organized study of history will involve major movements and themes and these could be interpreted as being archetypal. BTW I'm not in complete agreement that astrology has no mechanism, except possibly as non-science, because it uses the mechanism of the chart to find factors. The chart is a mathematical mechanism. The same could be said for Newtonian or relativistic gravity. Gravity is neither wave nor particle and is thus non-mechanistic, except for the mathamatics that is used to describe it. Piper Almanac 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)