Talk:Astrology/Archive 32

It seems to me that the fact that this is a pseudoscience is burried too far down. I have tried to introduce it quite early, but my edits have been reverted by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator. The approach I took was the same you find it articles such as phrenology, Feng shui, homeopathy, and reiki. You will see that two of them start by saying the it is a pseudoscience, as I did with astrology. The others say it in the next sentence or very soon after.

In his reversion, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator claims that "we need to start by explaining its specific features, not a feature it shares in common with many other things." This doesn't pan out. Such a claim precludes introductions like "The Invisible Man is a science fiction novel by H. G. Wells", which are obviously ubiquitous. Moreover, the revision simply replaces "a pseudoscience" with "the study", which itself is a feature shared in common with many other things. Any argument that the study is then modified by the of prepositional phrase is matched by the argument about the phrase following pseudoscience.--Brett (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to fix problems that do not exist. The lead is fine as it is. Anyone reading it can see that astrology is considered pseudoscience. The first sentence of the lead ("Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events") is clearly written; your preferred version ("Astrology is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is to find a means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects") is needlessly contorted. It is not even properly accurate, as astrologers believe they already do have a "means of divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events", as opposed to believing that they need to find such a means. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:Your excuses keep shifting. I disagree that there is no problem. If someone reads the first paragraph only, which is not unlikely, there is nothing at all there to suggest that this is a pseudoscience. That's a problem. It's a problem recognized and dealt with on other pages related to pseudoscience. It should be dealt with here too.--Brett (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the approach of "burying the lead" in this article comes from a decision by Second Quantization (possibly while bringing the article to WP:GA status?) with the idea of seeing whether believers could be drawn in to read a bit more of the article instead of having a knee-jerk rejection that would lead them to stop reading entirely. Plausibly, it could also reduce the amount of effort required by editors to maintain the article. It might be possible by now to see if this approach has been more effective at correcting misinformation, although I'm not sure what data we could use to test that.

Since it's a pretty important question, if data for an analysis isn't available one approach would be for Wikipedians to run a study ourselves, or else find some scientists who study Wikipedia and might be interested in finding out. This sounds like something that Doc James might be interested in, or he might know how to either do it or find someone to do it. (Despite this not inherently being a medical topic, the issue itself is of course very relevant to certain parts of the medical topic area.) It might also be that there are already analogous studies addressing the question in the psychological literature that we could use to make a judgement. Sunrise (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hum, an interesting question User:Sunrise, "Does calling out a pseudoscience lower in the lead result in greater or less engagement / vandalism?"

Once could take all pseudoscience article, see which are in what format, than look at both vandalism and the number of subsequent headings opened (the second being a marker of engagement).

One would both need to take into account variations in readership and quality between the two types of articles as I image those both affect the amount people read / vandalism. Could be an interesting study. However I do not think I have the ability to take it on. Will keep it in mind if I come across a student looking for a project :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed these updates when I replied. I agree that it is an emperical question as to what works. Unless we can turn up some data, though, I think we should follow the conventional wisdom: don't bury the lede.--Brett (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Leads are intended to be written as summaries that can stand in themselves, per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Worrying that people will read only part of the lead, and therefore not realize that astrology is considered pseudoscience, is an utterly baseless concern. That concern might possibly make sense if the article's lead were unusually long, but it isn't - it consists of only two reasonably short paragraphs. So we should simply follow the relevant guideline.

I note that Brett simply ignored my point that his proposed wording is not factually accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The accuracy of the claim @FreeKnowledgeCreator: makes about a particular wording is not relevant to the discussion about whether to mention pseudoscience in the first few sentences. In the guidelines about the lead, it says specifically that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences," not somewhere down near the bottom of the second paragraph. Moreover, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic," and the fact that this is a pseudoscience is really important. If we can agree that the characterization should be more prominent, then we can work on finding appropriate wording.--Brett (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading this talk page I think that the lede should mention PS. Other fringe articles do. See Acupuncture or any of the titles in this.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead does mention this, just further down, after its explanation of what Astrology is. Explaining what a thing is before people's attitudes to it is standard narrative order and gives readers a handle on why attitudes have formed this way. It is very hard, also, to allow anyone to make up their own minds when you have stamped an opinion on the subject in the first sentence. It is normal to describe a thing before stamping opinions on it. Britmax (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences," not somewhere down near the bottom of the second paragraph. As Akrasia25 says, have a look at other pages. See, for example, alchemy or ancient astronauts.--Brett (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

PS is not an opinion, it is a fact about Astrology as every study has proven. It is as important to put in the first sentence. Whatever your opinions are about Astrology, the lede without this says that you can determine the course of human events thru the stars --Akrasia25 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: As you have pointed out, the lead must contain the most important information. The fact that Astrology is a pseudoscience is essential. User:Brett talked about "reading only the first paragraph", and indeed, in my smartphone only the first paragraph appears before the index, so the rest is indeed buried. Elizandro max (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Following the example of "X is a (genre) (thing) that Y," "Astrology is the pseudoscientific study of the yadayadayada..." would be the best phrasing.

"Astrology is a pseudoscience, the goal of which is..." would be like saying "Star Wars is science fiction, presented in movie format, about..."

Or, following the example of alchemy, something along the lines of "Astrology was a protoscientific study of celestial objects that became a pseudoscientific means of divining information..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. That is where I started. But then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted the edit with the comment that this implies a non-existent scientific study thereof. The argument strikes me as silly, but rather than argue, I tried to adjust the wording. The goalposts keep moving though.--Brett (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The science would be astronomy. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I agree. But, their argument goes, that's not the scientific study of divining the future.--Brett (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The most important thing about Astrology is that it is PS. It is completely part of the 'definition' or essence about it that horoscopes are on the same page as the cartoons. The rest of its definition follows after that. Also, we are writing an encyclopedia of truth and we should not be afraid that someone will try to vandalize it. WP has many tools and editors and page protections to prevent that from happening. It might be interesting to see if vandalism happens less if we bury the lede but it would not change my opinion that PS should in some way be in the first sentence. I really can not understand why some editors want to argue this discussion on the Astrology page when less clear situations exist on other PS topics. And finally I agree with Brett that the goalposts are changing. What about something like what ian.thomson suggested "Astrology was a protoscientific study of celestial objects that became a pseudoscientific means of divining information..." --Akrasia25 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s probably a due weight issue in comparing this article to acupuncture. The pseudoscience mention in the acu article gets a bump because (as it claims to be a medical treatment), lots of doctors take the time to publish reports stating that it’s a PS bag of crap. Astrology is more concerned with what color shoes you ought to wear when you go out to day and as such, is crapped on by scientific publications from a height far closer to ground level. I don’t think a comparison of alt-med articles is a reason to bring this article “in line”. A case by case analysis is due. If there’s really a massive preponderance of sources discussing the pseudoscientific nature of this subject, then it probably belongs further up in the lead. If sources focus more on the historical aspects, then those should take precedence. I recently brought up the article shamanism as an example, in which pseudoscience isn’t really mentioned, despite there being lots of it associated with the practice. The reason for this is that is isn’t discussed in scientific terms that much. Perhsps when glassy eyed crystal chuckers work out a way to market it within the medical community and end up poisoning people, then we’ll start calling that pseudoscience too. Edaham (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Astrology is more concerned with what color shoes you ought to wear when you go out to day and as such..." Seriously? Are you folks too young to remember Nancy Reagan consulting astrologers to help her husband make decisions as US president? Read about it here. If only Wikipedia was available back then. Stop kidding yourself. Many use it to determine who they will date/marry, where to live, etc. "Pseudoscience" belongs in the FIRST sentence. At worst the second. Perhaps move the last sentence of the lead to follow the first sentence as: "Astrology is recognized by the scientific community as a pseudoscience—a belief that is presented as scientific without reasonable evidence." RobP (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

you’re probably right. The article should still be based on the availability of its own sources thought, not squared up with other articles. I am a bit young for the Nancy story. I was around, but I’d have been young at the time. Great story. Really amazing. Edaham (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Waaaiitt... Regarding this implies a non-existent scientific study thereof -- by that reasoning parapsychology is not really the pseudoscience form of psychology, except insofar as they both study the mind, but parapsychology is definitely pseudoscience nonetheless. What's the legitimate science for parapsychology? If it's psychology, then astronomy is the scientific study for which astrology is the pseudoscience, both studying the stars. Pseudoscience doesn't have to be the incorrect form of some other science, it can be bad science in isolation.

"Predicting the future" is divination in general, not specifically astrology. And predicting the future with astrology was just judicial astrology, which was just as often used to assign post-hob meaning to past events instead of predicting future ones. Medical astrology is a pseudoscientific medical practice, Natal astrology is a pseudoscientific psychology practice, and both were probably more common historically than judicial astrology. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The majority of comments here support putting it in the first sentence. Only Britmax and FreeKnowledgeCreator seem to be against this. They have offered arguments against particular wording, but those seem to have been overcome. Their main claim seems to now be that it doesn't need to be there. Others have offered good reasons for why it does, including the fact that what shows up on a phone is just the first paragraph by default. Unless some stronger arguments against putting it in the first sentence are presented, I think they should accept that it's useful and stop reverting useful edits.--Brett (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits are never useful if they introduce factual inaccuracies. I see no point in objecting to a wording that does not introduce a factual inaccuracy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you revert Akrasia25's most recent change?--Brett (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason was given in the edit summary. In addition to the reason given there, my opinion is that Akrasia25's edit added poorly-worded text and contorted language to the article. However, I no longer care. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

ok Brett. I think that is a clear go ahead to add PS to the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.249.134 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Brett (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the authority of an IP with one edit to their name who might possibly be you. Britmax (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That was me doing it away from my PC and not Brett. I couldn't log in where I was as I have a complicated PW. There is now only one editor that does not want PS to be in the lede. I think that we have consensus now.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any evidence or any reference where it is claimed that astrology is a science? Personally, I have never seen any. If such evidence or reference is lacking then astrology cannot be labelled as a pseudoscience.

Although there are undeniable important mathematical and astronomical elements at play that are indeed "scientific", astrology is primarily a form of divination AKA "a divinatory art". Being an art form, it cannot be labelled a science or a pseudoscience. That being the case, to begin to define an art form based on a scientific qualitative evaluation is not immediately relevant to the definition of the craft under scrutiny, regardless of whether it is able or not to produce anything of value in any way, shape or form.

The same approach to defining any other art form would immediately disqualify the definition.

For example, since there are undeniable important mathematical elements to music and since some musicians and/or computers are able to produce some music on that basis, music could be defined as follows:

"Music is a pseudoscience that claims to effect certain emotional changes in people by means of the application of various frequencies to the sense of hearing. For example, although the action of scratching horsetails with catguts -- an action known by practitioners as playing string instruments -- frequently manages to cause emotional reactions such as joy or sadness as evidenced by facial expressions such as smiles or tears, there is no scientific evidence and no neurological mechanisms capable of explaining the phenomenon. Moreover, such emotional reactions are not replicable in the subjects studied at all time." Although such definition of music would not be altogether wrong it would fail to define what music truly is.

This is how ridiculous the Wikipedia definition of astrology sounds. I am not suggesting to throw away whatever scientists may or may not have to say on the matter. I am merely pointing out that the scientific perspective on astrology is as irrelevant as any other scientific perspective on any other art form.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:265e:d37:1bc2:f78b:ce58 (talk • contribs)

If you read the Wiki article for pseudoscience, this topic EXACTLY fits the description. Any belief system attempting to pass as scientific without being scientific. I know of no common claims that the study of music or practice of musicians is scientific. RobP (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reference claiming that astrology is: A/ a belief system and B/ a science. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of astrology: "type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets." And: "Astrology is a method of predicting mundane events based upon the assumption that the celestial bodies—particularly the planets and the stars considered in their arbitrary combinations or configurations (called constellations)—in some way either determine or indicate changes in the sublunar world. The theoretical basis for this assumption lies historically in Hellenistic philosophy and radically distinguishes astrology from the celestial omina (“omens”) that were first categorized and cataloged in ancient Mesopotamia." Nowhere does it mention the words "belief" or "science". However, it mentions the words "divination", "method" and "philosophy".

For reference, here is the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of divination: "the practice of determining the hidden significance or cause of events, sometimes foretelling the future, by various natural, psychological, and other techniques. Found in all civilizations, both ancient and modern, it is encountered most frequently in contemporary mass society in the form of horoscopes, astrology, crystal gazing, tarot cards, and the Ouija board."

Again, no mention of science anywhere to be seen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:265e:d37:1bc2:f78b:ce58 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP. please read the banner on top of this talk page. Also, please read the article itself. You seem to have read only the introduction. You can also take a look at Astrology and science. --McSly (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of the content of the whole article. I am also well aware of the article "Astrology and Science" which is nothing more than an appeal to authority. I have provided respectable references defining astrology as a method of divination. Where are your references defining astrology as a science?

To point to a Wiki article on pseudoscience in order to support the definition of astrology presented here is self-referential and totally irrelevant unless astrology is first referenced as a science by a reputable secondary source that is, so far, nowhere to be seen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:265e:d37:1bc2:f78b:ce58 (talk • contribs)

Hello again. Please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ so threads are easier to follow. The point of the banner on top of this page is to avoid lengthy and sterile discussions on subjects that have already been settled. That banner specifically addresses and provides an answer to your request. --McSly (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mr McSly. I will not sign my post unless wikipedians post under their real names.

I am here to attempt to improve the article which, unless I am mistaken, is the raison d'être of Wikipedia "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" and of the talk pages. Any discussion will indeed remain sterile if one party is sure to be in a privileged relationship with the "truth" -- whatever that may mean from an epistemological point of view -- particularly when that party claims to have settled the "truth" once and for all.

The title of this section is "Fronting the pseudoscientific aspect of astrology" so I think I am in the right place.

By all known accounts, astrology is primarily defined as a method of divination. That being the case, the article should start with that definition. I provided a reputable reference in support of that definition (^[1]). Indeed, the very references used by Wikipedians also define astrology as a a method of divination without any mention or claim of "a belief system attempting to pass as a science". See here, here and here. The last link points to "The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy" where astrology is defined under the heading "Philosophy of Science": "As a philosophy, astrology is related to ancient cosmology and Ptolemaic astronomy, but it is mainly known as a divinatory art..." So, it seems that even your own references disagree with the assertion that astrology claims to be a science in any way, shape or form.

To define astrology primarily as a pseudoscience without first referencing any claim that astrology attempts to pass as scientific is inaccurate. It seems wikipedians have missed that crucial step. That being the case, the article should provide at least one solid reference defining astrology as a "belief system attempting to pass as a science". That being done, wikipedians are welcome to include counterclaims challenging that notion by quoting various opinions, including that of scientists further down the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:40c0:e527:b190:196e:1ad4 (talk • contribs)

Not signing your posts is disruptive. I will ask for you to be prevented from editing the project at all unless you sign your posts. Thanks. -Donald, the Trump. wooF 16:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me point anyone thinking Astrologuy should not be defined as a pseudoscience to look at the Astrology and science article. RobP (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

IP, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy literally uses Astrology as the litmus test for what defines pseudoscience because: "Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted (Culver and Ianna 1988; Carlson 1985)." Most notable of source. Unequivocal deceleration that astrology is a pseudoscience. Your error in reasoning was in thinking that pretending to be a science is the definition of a pseudoscience. This is not the case, as many pseudosciences proudly declare their antithesis to science. The linked article is a great treaties on how we might define a pseudoscience Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If astrology is introduced as "pseudoscience" in the opening statement, shouldn't every single religious belief? 75.167.180.24 (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it! RobP (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Only those that claim to be scientific. Or rather, only those where we have reliable sources saying they are pseudosciences. Like astrology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Claiming to be a science is not the definition of pseudoscience. As many pseudosciences actually declare their antithesis to science. This article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the demarcation in length. Religion as a category is separate from pseudoscience but a religious claim can and have been labeled as pseudoscience when they make demonstrably false causal claims, like faith healing or bullet proof underwear. But that tenant would labeled pseudoscience, not the entire religion. And Wikipedia would only label it as such when a notable source has done so first Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Was there not a book by Hans Eysenck called "Astrology - Science or Superstition" doing a statistical analysis of astrology? This could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

When I noticed that there were citations and that Kapyidu's edit made the text closer to them, with the lead already mentioning pseudoscience, I of course welcomed them. On the other hand, I realize that the first sentence is often what is showned as short description by Google or on mobile devices (we also have the short description on Wikidata or in a template). An ideal scenario would be for the lead not to need citations but to be an accurate summary of the body (per WP:LEAD). But what often happens then is that drive by editors notice pseudoscience and want to remove it, especially if it's not followed by an obvious supporting citation, so there's always a tradeoff... So for now I agree with the restoration of the pseudoscience mention in the first sentence, but have also added a supporting citation. —PaleoNeonate – 00:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is a stated article policy to have a “Neutral point of view,” how is it possible to begin the article with the pejorative statement that Astrology is a pseudoscience? Even from the viewpoint of science, bias should be avoided. We all know this is a loaded term.

It is also an anachronism. Part of the corpus of knowledge under the category called "astrology" formed prior to the development of what is called a "scientific method," a method within which the term "pseudoscience" was coined and deployed against rival knowledge, and also prior to the Latin word for science. According to the Wikipedia article, the term pseudoscience originates in the 19th century. It is anachronistic to call something "pseudoscience" that did not purport to exemplify the scientific method or to be a science as we understand the meaning of this term in the modern period.

The original Latin word for science might have been synonymous with knowledge. Thus, during that time if a text or body of thought presented itself as knowledge, it might also be transliterated as "science" in the Latin. But in the modern usage, science refers, much differently, to a set of specific practices and a heavy reliance upon empiricism to form so called verifiable facts. Thus, "science" can no longer be synonymous with knowledge: it is only one form of knowing—or for some the belief of knowing. It is only a subset within the broader category of knowledge. So if astrology purported to be a science long ago, this was consistent with what the word meant then: knowledge--or system of knowledge--in that time. If it purports to be a science now, which is much less loosely defined, that is an entirely different story. It cannot fit into that paradigm. But where is the evidence that the thread of astrology that still persists into the present is trying to fit into that paradigm, a paradigm that has only existed in the last couple hundred years, when astrology has been around thousands of years before "science," being what we understand that term to mean in our time?

From the outside, it looks like the use of the pejorative is like beating a dead horse. And how does that reflect on the professionalism of the scientific community?

Barry.kozemko (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is a stated article policy to have a "Neutral point of view" - The WP:NPOV policy is about faithfully representing reliable sources (WP:RS). Other policies include WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI (clearly identifying when a topic is considered pseudoscientific). —PaleoNeonate – 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the following entry from the dab page The Astronomer because it doesn't belong there:

• The Astrologer who Fell into a Well, an Aesop's Fable

I intended to add it to the See also section of this article, but I will have to ask someone who can edit it to do that. I can't imagine that adding it would be controversial. Thanks. —8.9.83.76 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have twice attempted to add this article to the category Pseudoscience, and have been reverted. The explanation given seems illogical to me, so I'd like a detailed explanation rather than an edit summary note. Specifically, I might understand if it can be explained how Homeopathy is different. That article is categorized as both Homeopathy and Pseudoscience. That was the first one of its type I looked at, and there it was - just the way I expected. I just now picked a totally different subject to see if that was a one-off, Baseball, and I see a similar situation there. The main article is categorized as Baseball, but also as Team Sport, of which baseball is surely a sub-cat. By the way, this came up when a friend looked at this article and noticed that the category list in Astrology at the bottom of the article did not include Pseudoscience, and was aghast, and asked me to fix it. RobP (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:SUPERCAT, especially the part stating, "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." If adding Category:Pseudoscience to the article were correct, it would have been done long ago - as I attempted to explain to you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: What are your thoughts on this? RobP (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Astrology is not pseudoscience, in my view, it's just bollocks. With something like homeopathy or acupuncture there's a cottage industry of practitioners producing sciencey-looking studies that support abject nonsense. I think the only studies of astrology are the ones quantifying the proportion of predictions that are correct, which usually find that astrology is somewhat less accurate than just guessing. Guy (help!) 14:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guy:Oh man. Can of worms opened. You do realize, right, that the very first line of this article is "Astrology is a pseudoscience..."? And, there are 17 other uses of the word in this article. Until now, we were only arguing the point of the level of category, because it is already a sub-cat of pseudoscience. Are you proposing a major change in the article? RobP (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion, but there is an existing consensus that the "Pseudoscience" category should be used even when categories lower in the hierarchy are present. In particular the SUPERCAT (aka SUBCAT) argument was discussed and ultimately rejected. Sunrise (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus at a given article is determined by discussion at the article's talk page. There is no consensus here to add the category. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to have a good reason to override a broader consensus, not a good reason to comply with it. Like I said, the SUPERCAT argument has been rejected in the general case, as determined by a formal closure. What is different about this article that makes you think it should be treated differently? Sunrise (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus at an article is determined on that article's talk page. A discussion that occurred a long time ago, somewhere else, does not mean that there is a consensus here to add the category. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, and I think it's quite a stretch to call February 2018 "a long time ago" in this context. That said, I've posted at FTN to request additional input. Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Astrology is obviously a pseudoscience and should be categorized as such. Sgerbic (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not about whether astrology is a pseudoscience. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Question one
Is the argument here that from the standpoint of WP:SUBCAT, the following cats exclude Category:Pseudoscience?

• Category:Acupuncture (Acupuncture is in both)
• Category:Ancient astronaut speculation (Ancient astronauts is not in Category:Pseudoscience but has Template:Pseudoscience)
• Category:Dowsing (Dowsing is in both)
• Category:Numerology (Numerology is in both)
• Category:Hollow Earth theory (Hollow Earth theory is not in Category:Pseudoscience but has Template:Pseudoscience)
• Category:Pseudomathematics (Pseudomathematics is in both)

Question two
Should we be discussing this on a page that talks about categories?
Question three
Has such a discussion already happened?
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

For Q3, yes. (As per my comment above) there is an existing consensus that the "Pseudoscience" category should be used even when categories lower in the hierarchy are present. The issue of SUBCAT was considered as part of that discussion, and given the result it was judged not to change the outcome. If there are any particular examples of a page not being in both categories, I would consider it to just be an oversight. I suppose the claim is that the consensus only applies to Acupuncture and the other articles that the person who triggered the discussion had specifically edited, but I don't see any justification for such an arbitrary distinction. Sunrise (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think those who oppose acupuncture being in the acupuncture cat and the pseudoscience cat are missing some really important aspects of categorization. When we see that Teller (magician) is in Category:American schoolteachers, that tells us something about Teller. When we see that Geena Davis is in Category:American female archers, that tells us something about Davis. We would not also categorize Davis as an archer, because it is obvious to all that if you are an American female archer you are an archer.

When we see that Acupuncture is in Category:Pseudoscience, that tells us something about acupuncture. When we see that Acupuncture is in Category:Acupuncture we learn nothing new about acupuncture We keep it in the acupuncture cat for completeness, but we should not use it being in its own cat as an excuse to miss a categorization that actually tells us something about acupuncture. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The placement of Astrology within Category:Pseudoscience would add no useful information, since the lead already states that astrology is a pseudoscience. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You can make that argument against pretty much any cat. The placement of Donald Trump within Category:Presidents of the United States adds no useful information, since the lead already states that Trump is the current president of the United States. The placement of iPhone within Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones and Category:Smartphones adds no useful information, since the lead already states that The iPhone is a smartphone made by Apple. The Categories are supposed to match up with the article content. We remove cats when it doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the point of categories is to group together related articles, rather than to provide information about an article's topic. They are a navigation device. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As a canonical example of a pseudoscience (in this case, a prescientific idea on whose storied history current-day practitioners lean heavily upon to argue for scientific legitimacy), I think astrology, like alchemy ought to be included in spite of WP:SUPERCAT. jps (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with jps about this. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have any basis in the relevant guidelines. Really, instead of making the case for a special exception to WP:SUPERCAT, you should be arguing for the categorization guidelines themselves to be revised, if you see your position as having any merit. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah, we've got WP:IAR on our side. jps (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, your position has no basis in the relevant guidelines. WP:IAR is not a guideline. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

True. It's merely a core pillar of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's already been demonstrated that plenty of other pages are following the consensus established elsewhere that archetypal pseudoscientific topic should labelled as such. The argument Consensus at an article is determined on that article's talk page rather renders ramshackle requests to respect policy, and moot given the support here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's become pretty clear, even if we only considered the comments on this page alone, that we have a consensus to use the category for this article. If FKC continues to object, I suppose we could request a formal closure? Sunrise (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If the assumption behind that comment is that I would continue to remove the category despite a clear consensus in its favor, that assumption is incorrect. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience for certain, and bollocks, per above. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change. I didn't want to make the assumption that you would necessarily agree with me! Sunrise (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Add the pseudoscience category to this page and WP:SNOW close. Also add the pseudoscience category to any related pages that don't have it already and, if anyone reverts or objects, post an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization to settle the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion here doesn't determine consensus at other pages. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Thus the statement "if anyone reverts or objects, post an RfC" which is a shorter way of saying "Discussion here doesn't determine consensus at other pages, but my personal opinion is that the pseudoscience category should be added to any related pages that don't have it already. If a single editor doesn't like the addition, rather than having Yet Another Discussion On That Page, in my opinion there should be a central RfC to determine the consensus of the English Wikipedia community for this and all all similar pages. Again in my opinion, Wikipedia talk:Categorization would be a good place to post such an RfC, but I am open to suggestions if anyone knows of another good place to post it." That's a lot of words to say something that I think everyone here including you understood when I used fewer words...   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯   --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Astrologaster. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Astrology#Western section: Please add a wikilink from "tropical zodiac" words to tropical zodiac. Thank you. Mezze stagioni (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Tropical zodiac is a redirect to zodiac. The first use of "zodiac" in the article is actually in the "Ancient world" section so that's where I placed the link. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not noticed that the (generic) "zodiac" was not linked too.

I think that a specifical wikilink from the technical and diffcult term "tropical zodiac" should be useful too. --Mezze stagioni (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest adding a book I found very thought provoking because it presents an approach not included here. It derives astrology completely from materialist science and rejects all elements of Theosophy, spiritual vibrations etc etc, and draws on the determinism of Herbert Spenser to argue that everything is predictable (given sufficient data and processing facility!) and that the phenomena in the heavens mirror the phenomena of mundane experience and ought to be able to be mapped one to one (or above to below!). It also takes a severely phenomenological perspective derived from Francis Crick's "astonishing hypothesis". Thus it locates astrology within orthodox science and Newtonian physics as opposed to the usual dualist 'science investigates...' approach. I think it is well worth including Astrology and the Brain by Abramelin (kindle). (It is the transcript of talks given to an occult group in 2017, unfortunately the author isn't named). Quisquis3354 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Most likely not. Aside from other potential problems, it doesn't look like that book has any kind of notability. --McSly (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This book looks extremely shaky; the very fact that the anonymous author chose to use the pseudonym "Abramelin", a name associated with the occult, as in the ceremonial magic oil used by Aleister Crowley, suggests that it is not a reliable source. With no known author or any provenance that would indicate the author's expertise, it couldn't be used as a reference, or even get a mention as more fringe hokum—that is, pseudoscience. Carlstak (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"everything is predictable ..." says Quisquis. This is most definitely not true. One of the fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics (which is perhaps the most precise theory ever devised, some predictions having been verified to an accuracy of better than one part in a billion) is that some things can never be predicted. For instance it is impossible to predict when a particular radioactive atom will decay. Baska436 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Indian method of astrology brings the completion of the definition of astrology. Source - https://astrosaze.com Astrosaze (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done, not a doable request. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think the phrase sacred canopy in § Western politics and society needs an {{Explain}} tag. It seems like specialist terminology and the meaning is completely opaque to me as a layperson. -- vagabondsun (talk ✨ contribs) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Aasim 21:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

redirects here but there's no discussion of it. Either a mention should be included or the redirect should be deleted. Serendi^podous 13:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be the correct spelling. It's used in 'Ancient Greece' and in 'Ancient Greece and Rome'. Thraex64 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This section is too abstract and difficult for many readers and probably most people who believe in astrology. Astrology is more a pseudoreligion than a pseudoscience for most people, even those who only half believe it and don't take it seriously.

A better and more easily comprehensible summary of why it's nonsense would be to summarize the physicist Nils Mustelin's criticism, which consists of an analogy even children can understand: He created "tramology", a parody of astrology based on the scientific fact that trams exert a greater force of gravity on a city's inhabitants than planets because they are so much closer. --Espoo (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

For example:

"Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterised as doing so '...in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary.'[117]"

The above statement attacks the believer as opposed to the belief, and one sees no logical use for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:24D0:2CA0:54D3:5438:BA5B:2312 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

'pseudoscience', another example of brilliant 'wikivoice' again. this should be removed immediately if wikipedia wants to aim to be objective, because the source listed is merely 'Why astrology is a pseudoscience' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Can't agree more. At the very least say "quasi-science," although even that is assuming the 20th century bias that "science" can be reserved only for the empirically knowable, whereas the word connotes any organized species of human knowing/a body of accumulated knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.133.26 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Astrology is a pseudoscience. Saying so is NPOV; omitting it is POV. Unless, perhaps, there are good sources labelling it as a e.g. religion, or something else, other than science. Quasi-science is not anywhere near the mark.--Nø (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

PS. Protoscience seems like a meaningful word in relation to pre-modern astrology, alchemy, humorism, and other non-scientific endeavours which involved observation of real phenomena that eventually became part of astronomy, chemistry and psychology (the observations, that is, but not the speculative, religious and supernatural theories). However, according to the wikipedia article on protoscience, a better word for these endeavours would be prescience. In relation to modern astrology, pseudoscience is the more accurate term.--Nø (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to fix footnote 8, but unfortunately, I cannot. Can someone else with the appropriate rights do so? ˜˜˜˜ H. (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hamaryns, can you be specific about what needs fixing? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What happens is that the footnote marker is shown like this: theoretical[8]:249;[9] H. (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hamaryns, I think that's intentional - isn't it showing you the relevant page number for the citation? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it is, but it looks ugly. Ah well, I suppose an entire process of reviewing will have prece(e)ded this ;-) H. (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hamaryns, yeah, it's not a style of citing work that I'm fond of - I much prefer the {{sfn}} style, which I believe is a more elegant way to present page numbers when using the same source multiple times (see Battle of Dunbar (1650) for example). However, I believe this method is permitted, and we're discouraged from going around changing citation styles to our preferred format, to avoid protracted and acrimonious bun fights. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

correct "practise" to "practice" Cigbruh (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Both forms are valid, and are present in approximately equal numbers in the article. One should be chosen for consistency (without modifying the one usage that appears in quotation marks), but that should be done through a discussion here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"In the late 1400s, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola forcefully attacked astrology" => "In the late 15th century, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola forcefully attacked astrology"

1400s means exclusively 1400-1409, not 1401-1500. According to his article, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola lived cca 1460-1490. 93.136.166.129 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much for that improvement of this article! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

is the word "divine" in the first sentence a verb or an adjective?--142.163.194.75 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Verb. "A pseudoscience that claims to divine information" can only make sense as a verb. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless whether or not its a pseudoscience, everyone can agree that its widely considered to be a pseudoscience. --Uni3993 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a pseudoscience and reliable sources say it's a pseudoscience. So that's what we're saying. Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Recently in the last 24 hrs an astrology page was removed by a user and i was using that page as a reference is there a way to get it back? Or is it gone forever? Maxlmus (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Maxlmus, can you provide any more detail about what you're talking about? Popcornfud (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was reading a page on astrology a basic understanding of it on Wikipedia. "What is astrology?" There was an in depth knowledge about the branches of astrology and it's various links regarding each branch. Some guy named plastikspork deleted that section of the page from public view. I don't know the reason but the page was helpful and it wasn't wrong or confusing so i want to why he deleted it and how to get it back Maxlmus (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article mistakenly calls astrology pseudoscience. Definition of pseudoscience: "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Astrology does not profess to be one of the physical sciences, and it certainly does not champion the scientific method or argue the scientific method validates it. This assertion is false, and likely the result of emotional bias.

Request is that all references to astrology being a pseudoscience be removed. Arescend52 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It is well referenced as pseudoscience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Arescend52, the article section Astrology and science#Philosophy of science is a good explanation of the reasons astrology is considered pseudoscience. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is no separation between "The Zodiac Man" and its description in the text under the 2nd image. I believe the best way to remedy this is by placing a comma or colon there. Sorry if this isn't the right location to point this out.

--GaryTheSeagull (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it needed a comma (or a colon, though I think a comma is adequate) and yup, this is the right place to point it out. Done, and thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article uses divine as a verb, and it is not a verb. And I know that the edits I made are unsourced, but its important to paraphrase. You can't give information that words a sentence the exact way as the source. Thats plagiarism. Unless it doesn't matter with wikipedia is free and is not-for-profit. Lunnesta8899 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Lunnesta8899

Mirriam-Webster's definitions include " to discover by intuition or insight : infer" which is the meaning intended here. I shall unwikilink. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article as of June 24 2020 says "Astrology is a pseudoscience...". There are four citations at the end of this sentence claiming to support that statement. I followed the links to the page's citations [1][2][3][4] etc and found that whoever wrote this first sentence is actually using trickery to summarize the definition. Reference [1] is from the UK Dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/astrology and says

"The study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world." This definition defines astrology as a study.

Reference [2] is from the Merriam Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology and says:

"the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects" This definition defines astrology as divination.

Reference[3] is from The Blackwell Dictionary says: "...mainly known as a divinatory art." This definition defines astrology as an art.

It is only reference [4] "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience" by Paul R. Thagard https://philpapers.org/rec/THAWAI

which mentions the word "pseudoscience", and that is someone's opinion, with no independent review of whether this opinion is valid.

Therefore, Wikipedia has no right to define astrology as a pseudoscience, since there is no evidence given that it was correctly termed a science, in the modern sense, in the first place. It seems that the writer of the current sentence is simply using the derogatory term "pseudoscience" as an ad hominem slight and vengeance to get a personal opinion across, both of which are against Wikipedia's policies, and should therefore be deleted, and replaced with an alternative linguistic definition of astrology. Alternatives might include:

                        metaphysical study
                        spiritual study
                        belief system
                        theory
                        symbolic language
                        art

Cjcooper (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Cjcooper:, you should read the rest of the article as well. There are multiple other citations that support the pseudoscience statement. For example, ref 14 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) states that "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences." Keep in mind that astrology is literally the text book example of what a pseudoscience is. This is in no way "someone's opinion, with no independent review of whether this opinion is valid". Current version of the article is perfectly correct.--McSly (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @McSly, The statement "There is widespread agreement..." is not evidence of something being correct. For example, an encyclopedia of cooking could say "there is widespread agreement that British cooking is pseudo-cooking". Would Wikipedia then be bound to start off a page about British cooking with the words "British cooking is pseudo-cooking". I hope not. And in order for something to be termed a pseudo-science, it would have had to have been claimed to be a science in the first place. But there is no evidence in the article, or the citations, that astrologers ever claimed that astrology was a science, as we understand science today (standing up to repeated experimental testing, making accurate predictions etc). It looks to me as if the first sentence is a deliberate jab at astrologers by someone who thinks that astrologers are not bright enough to know what modern science is. Ther truth is that modern astrologers are quite happy with astrology being termed a belief system, art, metaphysical study, ancient philosophy, divinatory study etc, with the only link to science being the astronomy on which it is indirectly based. Music, ballet and painting all depend on scientific principles but are of themselves arts, not sciences. Similarly, the art of astrological interpretation indirectly depends on the observable science of planetary cycles in a metaphysical way, incorporating spirituality and psychology. By continuing to term astrology a pseudoscience, Wikipedia is only giving the impression to readers of one-upmanship and vengeance, as the term is derogatory. It does not make Wikipedia editors appear to be "on the level", neutral or acting fairly, in my opinion, and I have a science background.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjcooper (talk • contribs)

Well, I have no doubt astrologers are happy to be described in positive terms instead of negative terms. That's why we rely on independent sources. So far, your whole argument seems to be that "you don't like it" and you have yet to produce a single source to back it up. On WP, we edit articles based on what reliable sources say on the topic. The sources are clear that not only astrology is pseudoscience, but it is the example used in textbooks to explain what pseudoscience is. Whether we personally agree or think that is to "only giving the impression to readers of one-upmanship and vengeance" has zero relevance. If you think the pseudoscience description should be removed, please provide the specific sources needed to back up that change. --McSly (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello McSly, You are probably right that astrologers would prefer not to be described by a negative term, especially on a social media platform which used to be known for its unbiased presentation. Wikipedia itself describes the word pseudoscience as pejorative, so it should not be difficult to understand why anyone, whether they are an astrologer or not, might assume that Wikipedia had a Chip_on_shoulder about astrology, using the word pseudoscience to unnecessarily insult, when several other un-insulting linguistic descriptions of astrology are available. So yes, I do think that the pseudoscience description should be removed and replaced with " Astrology is a branch of esotericism. My source for this statement comes from later in the Wikipedia article itself, where someone has written, in the Western section "Along with tarot divination, astrology is one of the core studies of Western esotericism". Since Western astrology is cited as being a core study of Western esotericism, it seems reasonable to assume that Eastern astrology is one of the core studies of Eastern esotericism, and therefore that both Western and Eastern astrology are part of/branches of the general term "esotericism".Cjcooper (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "social media platform". It is an encyclopedia. And neutrality does not necessarily mean "balance". If the consensus of the best available sources is that astrology is pseudoscience (and so far as I can tell, it is), then the neutral presentation of the subject is that the article reflect that consensus. Unless you can demonstrate that a substantial amount of reliable reference material does not agree with that classification, it is correct that it appear as such. Do you have any good references which dispute the classification of astrology as pseudoscience? (As a means of comparison, an unnecessarily insulting and non-neutral term would be to describe it as "bullshit" or "woo". "Pseudoscience" might not be a term astrologers like, but if it's accurate, it is no more needlessly pejorative than describing a convicted murderer as exactly that.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

When a topic is pure nonsense, an encyclopedia should, and in this case does, describe it as such. Pseudoscientific is exactly on the mark, neatly indicating in mainstream terms the utter utter nonsense it describes. We dont do handwaving. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you all apparently can't be bothered to actually read @Cjcooper's (admittably long worded) posts, allow me to summarise it as concisely as I can, in big, easy to read letters...

ASTROLOGERS DO NOT CALL THEMSELVES SCIENTISTS. ASTROLOGERS DO NOT CALL ASTROLOGY SCIENCE. THEREFORE, BY DEFINITION, IT *CANNOT* BE PSEUDOSCIENCE.

And a thousand astronomers who wait in line to espouse that astrologers are fraudulently pretending to be scientists doesn't make it any more true than does a thousand Chinese communists declaring that the Dalai Lama's reincarnation will be controlled and regulated by the CPC make that to be so (and there are *plenty* of sources declaring it to be, but no reasonable editor would advocate stating that in wikipedia's voice). Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the above comment sums it all up nicely. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, so the word "pseudoscience" should be removed, woof.

I for myself am not convinced that astrology is bullshit, neither am I that it makes sense. Which leads me to want to read about it, to form an opinion, get to know more about it. Finding an article to start with a derogatory word like "pseudoscience" immediately stops me from reading further, since obviously, the article is tainted.

My suggestion would be 'belief system', which is quite neutral and for people that get the shrugs from everything spiritual, they know they can stop reading.

But who would read this article? Certainly everybody has at least an idea about what astrology is, so I would deem the article to be directed toward interested readers. Why shy them off? ˜˜˜˜ H. (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"The article is tainted" - so you don't want spoilers? You say you want to form an opinion, but as soon as there is the slightest danger of that happening, you start complaining. It seems you want to keep sitting on the fence, so you reject everything that could change that state of affairs.

Well, it does not matter, since we will not adapt the encyclopedia articles to pander to your dogmatic agnosticism, or whatever it is. If you do not want your state of opinionlessness endangered, you should avoid websites that contain information, such as Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: From your reaction it looks like I offended you. I am sorry if I did.

What you call a spoiler makes me feel like someone trying to force his opinion on me. And you are right that calling it tainted is a harsh judgement on my part, I am sorry for that as well. H. (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much whether astrologers actuallyclaim to be scientist or not. They claim to arrive at knowledge, facts, about earthly realities, don't they? Or, if they avoid that claim, I think their clients tacitly assume they do. I know it's often packaged with mumble-jumble about needing to be interpreted, and not being definitive but something the client can take into account and influence with his/her own choices and actions, but still, unless some connection between the stars/planet and earthly matters is assumed, the whole exercise is vacuous.

This means, I believe, that astrology must be classified either as pseudoscience, religion, belief system, or superstition.

Obviously, as with e.g. cold reading, a good astrologer can consciously or subconsciously twist the interpretation of any horoscope to make sense for the client, and may in fact be a positive force in the client's life (not unlike what can be the case with e.g. i ching oracles).--Nø (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Gtmoore (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC) /* First Sentence */ Correction to assumptions about definition of "pseudoscience": First, pseudosciences do not need to self-identify as sciences to be called pseudoscience. All they need to do is to use methods that can be mistaken for science by others. ^[1] Astrology uses what appear to be scientific tools, namely real star charting and real mathematics, but fails to clearly state testable theories or test and prove its claims. Second, astrologists, astrology books, and astrology sites do constantly claim to be scientific. One of the main astrological tables is called a scientific ephemeris. The word pseudoscience has been used to describe some approaches to psychology, anthropology and archeology, (which are generally called "soft sciences"). ^[2] Predictability is considered scientific for some subjects such as weather. On the other hand, stock market predictions are still not scientific, even though they are capable of being described in what is claimed to be a purely numeric manner. Weather is not perfect in its predictions, but the parameters of success are known and testable. If astrology ever had the same predictability as weather predictions, it could become a science. Likewise, stock predictions. In the meantime, they are both psuedoscience, having an appearance of being scientific, but not meeting the definition of science. Gtmoore (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gtmoore: This discussion was over months ago with no consensus to remove "pseudoscience" from the lede. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the use of 'pseudoscience' to an ancient human practice inherent to all cultures of the world since the dawn of civilization, a practice which was the ground of mathematical, musical, and geometric growth and learning across the planet for millenia is extremely short-sighted, arrogant and, dare I say, colonialist. I am surprised that some of the comments above in the discussion are still here given how rude and insensitive they are, passing the boundaries of wikipedia's rules for conduct. One could maintain the use of 'pseudoscience' in the first sentence with an epithet: Astrology is considered a 'pseudoscience' by western scientific paradigms, but remains an age-old influential and popular practice of divination in most all human cultures. ^{[1] [2]} Coloniality denigrates and attempts to destroy all forms of knowledge which it does not understand and which do not abide by its self-imposed rules and standards of measurement. Anyone with any sort of responsibility towards encyclopedias and human knowledge ought to find the above discussion and the imperialist use of the term 'pseudoscience' abhorrent. I would be interested to know how other wiki entries in different languages have approached this issue, or if indeed it is as big an issue as in the dominant english language? Joldt (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, you found a great way to convince people that you are right: insult them, label their achievements with bad "-ism" words, boast that your way is better because it was invented way back in times when the overall understanding of the world was so good that average life expectancy was about 20, look down on them, wrinkle your nose at the words they use, quote sources as saying things everybody knows anyway and which are already incorporated in the article, demand the abandonment of rules, and avoid reasonable discourse at any cost.

But I have bad news for you: original as it may seem to you, others have tried all that before, and for some unfathomable reason, it did not work. Can you please do it somewhere else? This page is for discussions about source-based improvement of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey it is a science of god Hey it is more than science please do not call it a pseudoscience 61.2.201.111 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

our article correctly labels Astrology a pseudoscience, so we will not be making changes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm just dim, but this is the fifth or sixth time I stumbled upon this article and was confused by what the first sentence meant by "... that claims to divine information about ...". It's obvious that the vast majority of people recognize "divine" as an adjective meaning "of God or deities" rather than a verb meaning "have supernatural knowledge". I think it needs a change, but I don't know squat about astrology, so I can't tell what's the best verb for it. I hope someone here does. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's too easy to read it as an adjective. I switched it to "discern" for now, although if anyone else finds a better verb, go for it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a better word - plain English saves the day. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussions are taking place as to whether the articles Descendant (astrology), Angle (astrology) and Derivative house are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted. The articles will be discussed at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendant (astrology)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative house

In addition, a recent proposal to delete the article Midheaven has been rejected, but any editor is welcome to start a deletion discussion about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to the "External links" a link to the exhibition of the Library of the Observatory of Paris "Sharing the sky : astronomers and astrologers in the West" (https://bibnum.obspm.fr/exhibits/show/astronomy_astrology/introduction) with this mention : "An exhibition of the Library of the Observatory of Paris about the shared history of astronomy and astrology around the Mediterranea." 145.238.197.116 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the lede defines astrology as a pseudoscience. So what's a pseudoscience?

 “Under the criterion of falsifiability, first proposed by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, astrology is a pseudoscience.” (Astrology, sub-section ‘Demarcation’)

Ah, ok, so the criterion of pseudoscience is falsifiability. Or rather, if we're going to be careful about it, for Popper falsifiability is the criterion of the scientific and its lack is the mark of the pseudoscientific—presumably that is what the sentence above is meant to mean. From an article elsewhere on here (Philosophy of science, sub-section ‘Defining science’):

 “Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.”

So far so clear. But then Astrology also contains passages like this:

 ‘The scientific community (…) considers [astrology] a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.’ 

Or:

 ‘Where [astrology] has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions, they have been falsified.” 

Or:

 ‘The study, published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."’

Hm. Wasn’t the point about the term pseudoscience—from Popper′s point of view, at least—that he needed some term to describe claims that are put forward as scientific but are not, as he saw the matter, genuinely scientific because not even capable of being shown to be wrong? Like, if I put forward a theory and we experiment, and try as we might we fail to make it fit the data, then we have not shown, according to Popper, that the theory was pseudoscientific. On the contrary, it was good science precisely because it was capable of being empirically tested and found wanting.

So on the one hand we have Popper saying, roughly, ‘astrology is pseudoscience because its claims aren’t falsifiable’ (subsection entitled ‘Demarcation’), and on the other, ‘the scientific community’ appearing to say, ‘astrology is pseudoscience and we’ve falsified its claims (because we’ve falsified them?).’

Is ‘the scientific community’ wrong when it (?) says that astrology has been falsified? Or is astrology perhaps scientific after all (but false)? Could Popper be wrong about the criterion of demarcation? Or is ‘the scientific community’ just using the term psuedoscientific in a different way to Popper? Or might the article itself be in need of clarification? Does it trade on unexamined equivocations in the term pseudoscience? Or does it, perhaps also, lean too heavily on the phrase ‘scientific community’ while ignoring the complexities that lie behind that phrase?

Maybe someone with the necessary privileges will be able to do something to disentangle the threads a little.

Help is to be gotten, IMHO, from Astrology and science and the comparatively excellent article on de.wikipedia.org. Aingotno (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your application of Popper's ideas is naive. Astrologers say things like, "the stars guide our fate", which is unfalsifiable. When you ask them how, they may say things like, "People born in the time interval X to Y are more likely to be Z", which is also unfalsifiable since all we can prove is that the effect is so close to zero that we cannot find it, but not that it is exactly zero (because that is not how measurement works). When they say falsifiable things like, "People born in the time interval X to Y are twice as likely to be Z", those will be falsified as soon as someone checks. A pseudoscience does not stop being pseudoscience just because some of its claims are falsifiable.

Also, the demarcation problem has been looked into by others since Popper.

Also, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your deductions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, except of course that the sourcing in this article for how and why astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience is rather weak, and represented in ways that are quite undue. The article tends to contradict itself when both saying that in contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology has not responded to falsification through experiment (in a seeming acceptance in wiki-voice of Popper's identification of 'scientific' with 'falsifiable') and that scientific testing of astrology has been conducted. It's quite clearly an artefact of the tendentious way in which this section has been written: in its zeal to declare astrology a pseudoscience in all possible ways, it wants to have its cake and eat it, too (as an aside, Astrology and science suffers even more from this).

Moreover, Aingotno's 'deductions' are actually also made in eminently reliable sources. For example, Sven Ove Hansson in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Science and Pseudo-Science" article writes that Popper’s demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science [...] and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific [...]. Strictly speaking, his criterion excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable. According to Larry Laudan [...], it “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions”. Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted.

It may be worth rewriting the section a bit based on Hansson and other sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To hopefully be a little bit clearer, I'm making an observation and a suggestion. The observation is that there's a three-way tension between the categorization of astrology as pseudoscience, the references to Popper and falsification, and the references to empirical testing of astrological claims. The suggestion is that the article be reorganized in order to clarify at least a couple of the ways in which different people have subsumed astrology under the(ir) concept(s) of pseudoscience.

As you say, Hob Gadling, exponents of astrology have said different things at different points in time, and empirical researchers have done likewise. And as your source shows, Apaugasma (thanks for the citation!), the same goes for philosophers of science. The history of all of this is obviously complex. Necessarily, the article has to reduce this complexity -- somehow. It has to select and connect in its own way. It should be based on and cite its sources; that goes without saying! But given any collection of source materials, intelligence still has to be applied in bringing together and articulating what they say. For better or worse, there's no source material that can relieve us of the task of integrating our source materials.

Hob Gadling, why don't you use the explanation in your comment here as a basis for helping to disentangle the presentation in the article itself? -- Aingotno (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources and not on what I say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aingotno: please just ignore Hob Gadling's disparaging comments; there's nothing constructive to be expected from them. Instead, be bold and update the article. I think your observations are astute, and you have my support! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Au contraire mon ami, it would be foolish to ignore Hob, one of our experienced editors in this field. They have much support from other experienced editors too!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Roxy, if you are here to comment on the content, please do so. Your expression of support is meaningless without it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, my support goes to consensus. Your support has no reliable sources. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

“Popper argued that the central property of science is falsifiability. That is, every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle.”

That is what Popper said. It was his reason for calling astrology pseudoscience. Astrology is still considered pseudoscience, but not necessarily exactly for this reason.

The scientific community (…) considers [astrology] a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.

This is true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

Where [astrology] has made falsifiable predictions under controlled conditions, they have been falsified.

Also true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

The study, published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."

Also true. There is no contradiction to Popper saying something else.

Popper tried his criterion on Freud, Darwin, and Marx too, and found their ideas unfalsifiable. But he misunderstood Darwin, so he was wrong there. Popper is not the final arbiter on what is science or pseudoscience, but in most cases consensus says he was right, although not necessarily for the right reasons. Astrology is one of those cases. And no, we will not remove the fact that it was and is viewed as pseudoscience from the article. Popper is historically important, so I think he should stay. Maybe we can explain that the reasons for considering astrology pseudoscience have changed a bit since then, if we find sources.

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. All the time, unexperienced editors think the sources contradict each other and want to change articles accordingly, but that won't do. It does not matter if editors second-guess reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hansson in the SEP says that Popper's criterion of falsifiability excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable and states that astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted. In other words, Hansson is pointing out the perceived contradiction.

What Hansson is saying can be set out as follows. If all pseudoscience is irrefutable, and if astrology is not irrefutable (because it has in fact been refuted), then astrology is not pseudoscientific. Since the argument is logically valid, and since the conclusion is false, one of the two premises must also be false. Hansson thinks that it's the first premise that is false, i.e., he thinks that at least some pseudosciences, like astrology, are indeed refutable. But that must also mean that Popper would be wrong in characterizing all pseudoscience as irrefutable: if we are to follow Popper's view, we must hold on to the idea that astrology is irrefutable.

This is, of course, because Popper denied the possibility of basing scientific knowledge on inductive reasoning, and would not agree that we can infer a refutation of a 'some x cause y' claim from any limited set of failed verifications that x causes y. On the other hand, to say that astrology (construed as a 'some x cause y' claim) is false because a large amount of tests have been conducted, all of which have failed to produce evidence of any x causing y, is to accept the validity of inductive reasoning in science.

Despite the fact that this is an often-used rhetorical device (which has also crept into our article here), one cannot consistently both claim that something is not even false, and that it is false. However, one can claim that in a set of things some are 'not even false' (i.e., unfalsifiable) while some are false (i.e., in fact falsified), and it seems to me that astrology is such a set that contains elements of both. Unfortunately Hansson, who's primarily out to refute Popper, doesn't comment on this. Perhaps we can find another source that does.

In any case, no one is suggesting to remove the fact that astrology is viewed as a pseudoscience from the article. Rather, the suggestion is to rewrite the paragraph on Popper in such a way that Hansson's critique of Popper is incorporated, so that our article too will no longer appear to be contradicting itself by affirming in wikivoice both Popper's view (astrology cannot be falsified) and a view which directly contradicts Popper's view (astrology has in fact been falsified). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

When Hansson says, astrology [..] has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted. he means that specific astrological claims that have been tested have been thoroughly refuted. If you define astrology as the set of testable claims it makes, then, yes, it is falsifiable. But astrology ia also the general idea that there is a connection between above and below. That is what Popper means, and that is not falsifiable. All this is pretty boring, and you don't need to spread a simple modus tollens over several sentences.

I have discussed astrologers, and most of the things they say are "not even false". They talk about synchronicity and other cloudy things and try hard not to be nailed down. Falsifiable claims are made by rookie astrologers and by the ones who don't care about being contradicted. But that is neither here nor there.

Better just suggest an improvement to the article, and we can stop all this WP:OFFTOPIC stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a common experience that astrologers make both unfalsifiable and false claims. That's not the point here though. The point is that while for Popper astrology is only pseudoscience in so far as it is unfalsifiable (because, as Hansson points out, for Popper falsifiablity is a sufficient criterion for being scientific), for others (like Hansson) the fact that it has been falsified is crucial to its being pseudoscience. The point is that these views are mutually contradictory, and that our article should explain this, instead of affirming both views in wikivoice as unproblematically true.

But then other sources than Hansson should also be consulted, and Popper's view should be contrasted more clearly with those of Kuhn, Thagard, and indeed Hansson himself. I'm not at all up to this right now. Moreover, I have some serious reservations about the due-ness in this article of elaborating so much about the various ways in which philosophers of science have defined pseudoscience, in which astrology is nothing more than a favorite example. It's all quite tangential, and that whole section should be heavily trimmed, in my view.

But I will not argue about any of that now. I just wanted to confirm to Aingotno that the problematic tension they perceive in the article is indeed there, and that it has been explicitly addressed by Hansson. Perhaps they or someone else do want to go through the literature and rewrite some of this stuff. I don't have anything to add to that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Poppers famous falsifiability criteria for science is one definition, but its hardly the only one, just the most famous one. Other philosophers have proposed many other definitions of the scientific method, with Paul Feyerabend going as far as suggesting there is no scientific method and that the work of scientists are fairly anarchic. (The truth is, its both true and not true if you separate the institutional practice of science and the individual practice). The point Im getting at is, dont get hung up on it. Astrology is a pseudoscience because its believed *despite* the evidence against it. An experiment to prove or disprove astrology is science, refusing to accept the science and keeping on believing, is pseudo-science. Duckmonster (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Lots of text and arguments have been added... and I won't read it all.

But let me say this: Astrology is, in various contexts and at various times, a proto science, a pseudoscience, and a cultural phenomenon. If, in the end, the article denies any of these, it will diminish my faith in Wikipedia as a project of reason.

There will be published die-hard pseudoscientists or academic apologists who deny it is a pseudoscience. There will be one-eyed positivist who deny it is anything but a pseudoscience.

I hope a consensus can be reached not falling into any of those two absurdities (while both may have to be covered by the article).--Nø (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact lunar influence is true. I did an experiment during full, waxing and waning moon phases. The results were my temperature and pulse went up slightly. Of course the Earth does have a gravitational pull to the sun. The fact I have proof for gravitational magnetic field influences, I think there should at least be a legit theory. Godthåbsgade (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not original research, this is the most irredeemably useless "experiment" I've heard of. You can't conduct experiments on your own physiology, and there's no way to attribute the cause of any difference to the stage of the moon. Staggering to me that anyone considers this a valid case for astrology. Cpotisch (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that breaks our rules on original research, but if you can find an independent source and/or have your results published you may have a chance of inclusion. Britmax (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Earth does have a gravitational pull to the sun. That sort of reasoning is a pretty common red herring used by astrologers, although usually it is about tides. It says essentially, "Unplausible connections between A (outside Earth) and B (on Earth) are plausible because there are also existing and proven connections between C (outside Earth) and D (on Earth)." That does not work. Connections between two things are not contagious and do not jump to two other things.

So, even if original research were allowed, this one would fail. Find a reliable source. (Prediction: You will not find one.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Astrology has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD SKEPTICISM:

Skepticism:

Many believe that Astrology does not work and it a pseudoscientific practice. Astrology can seem like a natural science as it studies the stars, however it is not. Astrology does not have any verifiable mechanism and it can be difficult to approach critically. Scientists must acknowledge facts and their hypothesis against conflicting theories using scientific methods. Astrologers fail to acknowledge facts as there are no real understanding or facts supporting astrology. Astrologers struggle to come to a consensus on their hypothesis' as they have many different claims as to why astrology works ranging from the magnetic field of the earth to the alignment of other planets. Some researchers claim that the reason astrology works is still unknown and they are still searching for it. Despite many trials, astrology has never demonstrated any scientific evidence or effectiveness. Astrology fails the criteria of falsibility as well. Therefore, science is not considered a science, but instead it is a pseudoscience.

Astrological predictions seem to work because they are vague and can apply to any situation and lack predictive power. This is somewhat due to the lack of consistency in the research and astrologers understanding of the subject. Astrologers have a vague hypothesis on what the stars can predict and most astrologers seem to have a different indication to that effect.

There is also a lack of physical evidence that links human behaviour to the constellations. There is no scientific evidence that supports these claims and no theories that are consistent with theories that have already been tested and proved. JenniferRunions (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:DOIT and WP:NPOV, I have revised the lede from:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

to

Astrology is an ancient ritual, religious, and divinatory system that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects. It is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators.

The reasoning here is simple:

• Astrology predates the scientific method by several thousand years, unlike genuine pseudosciences like reflexology and homeopathy; and
• Contemporary readings which model astrology as cultural astronomy (cf. ethnoastronomy, archaeoastronomy) rather than simply "false" or a protoscience

Will clean it up a bit, perhaps, as well.

--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Added a source with an explanation of the philosophy of science reading vs. anthropology-ethnography reading.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your bold edits are not supported by your comments here, so per WP:BRD I have restored the NPOV version extant. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How do my comments not support my bold edits? As anthropologist Clive Ruggles notes in Ancient Astronomy: An Encyclopedia of Cosmologies and Myth, while astrology is "anathema" to modern astronomers (who are not social scientists,) it is a genuine object of study within archaeastronomy. Full disclosure here, that while I am an anthropologist and thus critical of applying the term "pseudoscience" to cultural and religious systems, I do not think the lede should communicate only that interpretation, but should show a neutral description of the contrary models. Astrology is indeed widely understood as a pseudoscience, though not universally so, especially outside of the hard sciences.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 07:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying "it is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators" rather than the original definitive claim of astrology is pseudoscience, which is a proven fact, is not supported by the highest quality sources available. This suggests that the idea that astrology is pseudoscience, while widely believed, is actually in doubt (it's not). Therefore, the edit you made wasn't appropriate and the original version was correct. I agree with Roxy restoring the original lede sentence. Have a nice day. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a very naïve view. Firstly, it ignores major epistemological debates within the philosophy of science, notably the demarcation problem -- the philosophy of science is not a hard science (most would argue it is not a science at all). Whether it is appropriate to consider astrology as pseudoscience is absolutely debated, as I originally noted. Second, it is ignorant to modern models of traditional knowledge as developed and applied in anthropology and ethnography. I have once again revised the lede sentence, indeed the whole introductory section, this time with more high-quality academic sources and more context as to the discussion and those involved with it. To give a more neutral perspective, I also added (and moved) a couple of sentences to highlight the arguments as to why astrology is a pseudoscience. On the other side of the debate, these are the sources I have used:

• Astronomies and Cultures, edited by Clive Ruggles and Nicholas J. Saunders, published by University Press of Colorado
• A Brief History of Ancient Astrology, edited by Roger Beck, published by Wiley-Blackwell
• Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, edited by Clive Ruggles, published by Springer
• Ancient Astrology, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine Under the Roman Empire, by Tamsyn Barton, published by Routledge
• "Why did Feyerabend defend astrology? Integrity, virtue, and the authority of science", in Social Epistemology 30.4

Once again, these are not being used to argue that astrology is not a pseudoscience, but provide a wider description of scholarly inquiry on the subject.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 09:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, this part of User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo's text is a clear improvement:

:Astrology is an ancient ritual, religious, and divinatory system that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects.

Describing astrology in the milennia predating moderns science as a pseudoscience is not reasonable. Possibly, claims could be seeks or pruports instead. However, the last bit,

It is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by modern commentators.

may be too vague. Perhaps,

In a modern context, astrology is a pseudoscience. ? --Nø (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading the lead as it stand now, I think it creates a false conflict between the view of astrology in natural sciences vs. the view in the humanities (pls forgive me if my labeling of the two sides is inappropriate). I think making a distinction between ancient (pre-modern) astrology and the modern resurgence of astrology resolves that conflict. Of course, you can find unbalanced views in both communities - scientists who flatly refuse that ancient astrology is anything other than a pseudoscience, and people in the humanities who refuse that astrology in any way may be considered a pseudoscience - but still, I think the distinction between ancient and modern will make things clearer.--Nø (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The conflict is real, though. Anthropologists and ethnologists don't only study people and cultures of the past -- Western, Chinese, Indian, and Mesoamerican forms of astrology are extant and these are relevant objects of study outside of a pseudoscience case study. Those sources outline the critique as seen from the social sciences.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead states "...Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems..."

The word "purport" seems too soft and perhaps unintentionally obfuscates away from its lack of empirical validity. Without changing the above statement it seems in line with articles covering similar content to include a statement on that indicates no academic research to indicate any merit behind such efforts. I'd suggest appending the statement. "However, these practices are considered pseudoscientific and whose predictions have repeatedly shown to be false." Or something along those lines. Purport hints at this fact but I think explicit recognition of Western Astrology as pseudoscientific and lacking empirical backing is an important inclusion.

Sadke4 (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)