Misplaced Pages

The Misplaced Pages approach fails for this subject

The consensus of editors here have proven one thing - the policies of Misplaced Pages fail for a complex subject of this nature. In principle, this article is supposed to be open to editing by anyone who has knowledge of the subject and can provide a verifiable account of what astrology is, the philosophy behind it, its notable influence, and historical and contemporary applications. The result of that collective input ought to lead to ever-improving focus on the most important and significant aspects of the subject, presented in an encyclopedic, informative manner. But, alas, all editors who are informed but not hostile are eventually sidelined, the result being that this article is now merely an attempt to vilify astrology and focus on the definition of what it is not. Rather than presenting details on the pertinent issues and notable criticisms, it is dominated by inconsequential ramblings against astrology and criticisms which either don't apply, don't carry weight, or are answered philosophically by the astrological argument (which is not allowed to be presented here, according to the 'rules' apparently).

The fault, perhaps, is not in the stars, but the fact that Misplaced Pages is driven by agendas, and has adopted policies which psuedo-skeptic editors diligently twist to ensure that the focus on verifiability and notability is not enforced. Before puffing up with satisfaction at the prospect of diminishing this controversial subject, consider the wider consequence of allowing this approach to prevail, and what a disservice you do to the ideals of Misplaced Pages. This place is supposed to make knowledge and information freely available to those who genuinely seek it and sincerely follow an interest. The prohibition that has been placed on the points of real astrological interest here appear to be motivated by fear, lest enquiring minds should access philosophical perspectives and theological views that extend beyond the borders of what modern science considers objective and provable.

Many editors left this subject in disgust last year, after the consensus decided not to allow reference to the fact that a truly independent and authoritative re-evaluation of the Carlson experiment reversed its findings and demonstrated "significantly-relevant" support for the astrologer's claims. This is the verifiable truth, but we are not allowed to report it. Instead, gleeful sceptics insist on adding more prominence to Carlson, for supposedly proving astrology to be false. And what a disingenuous report of the criticisms of Gauquelin’s work, which hides the truth: that his experiment was critiqued from all angles, but every attempt to disprove it only served to strengthen his claims. His findings have never been disproven though the reader would learn otherwise. It has become the policy that nothing but negative reports are allowed to be presented here, regardless of their worth, reliability or significance. Many comments on the page are transparently false to those who know the subject well - but the argument that editors cannot make reference to primary sources, or to any astrological source, or to any academic source when it is not hostile to the subject, ensures that censorship prevails.

Presenting an imaginary account of astrology does not serve the interests of science. It simply makes a mockery of this publishing platform - no longer Misplaced Pages but Wickedpedia, a place which exists far, far away from anything remotely intelligent, balanced or encyclopaedic. To all who participate in the falsification of history and prohibition of relevant facts, enjoy your fairy-tale, but beware how it ends. Other sources are out there, academics do treat the subject seriously, scholars and researchers are not easily fooled, and attempts to oppress information usually have the opposite effect. -- Zac Δ 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with that whine? If you don't like our policies on fringe topics you're free to contribute elsewhere. I really feel you would be a good fit at Citizendium - their astrology article needs attention, and they welcome agenda-driven SPAs with open arms. Skinwalker (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. I'm sorry you feel that WP policies are bad, but this isn't the place to discuss them. You can take it to RSN, the Village Pump, a policy talk page, another noticeboard, or off-site. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you have strong personal beliefs on the issue, but[REDACTED] is here to represent what the reliable sources say. I was faithful faithful to the reliable sources, I didn't introduce OR when I added to the scientific reception section.

On the note of what you say about "authorative" papers: there is nothing unique to astrology in your claims, every pseudoscience belief system claims they have the truth, Psychics, Alt Med, etc etc all claim to have rebuttals to scientists. They claim that they are misrepresented in some way, that Study X was wrong or didn't take account of the subtle nature of the art, and pseudosciencer Y printed an authorative rebuttal in Pseudoscience Weekly. They just aren't good enough as rebuttals to highly cited articles published in reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. When you've devoted your life to something you don't want to find out that there is no basis for your belief, that it all can be explained away by statistics and psychology. It can be hard to accept. But, if that is what the reliable sources say, that is what we report.

In fact on[REDACTED] I think explaining what astrologers believe and what astrology entails in excruciating detail (and reliably sourced) is important. But, when it comes to the scientific research we should not use crap sources to counter some of the most reliable sources. If we did use these crap sources we would then be violating NPOV, see WP:VALID. We should not pretend that there is evidence for astrology, we should not pretend that astrology has scientific acceptance, we should not pretend that the reliable sources take it seriously as a predictive tool. To do otherwise is to be violating[REDACTED] policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than presenting details on the pertinent issues... is dominated by inconsequential ramblings...

This is pretty ironic. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I am speaking out against a prevalent attitude, and hardly expect to find expressions of agreement. But the history of the page will show the extent that I have contributed to this article as an editor, so - like it or not - I don't think anyone can doubt that my concern is a genuine one.

Jess - it is relevant on this talk page because the issues directly affect the content of this article - which uniquely does not have a defined category on Misplaced Pages. And it is also relevant that the problematic attitudes evident here are also evident in the contributors of the boards which are supposed to address them. Perhaps a RFC should be made for suggestions on my concern that the content of this article has been dramatically reduced by the attempt to prohibit informative facts and ensure the focus is a negative one. Unfortunately, for the reasons given, I no longer have confidence in the WP process. It simply does not work in an article of this nature, where decisions are enforced according to the popular vote (intrinsically sceptical) rather than the notability, reliability and relevance of the editorial amendments.

IRWOLFE - the sources you have used are crap sources. They are not notable. You appear to believe that if you find a criticism of astrology in a book published by an astronomer or critic, then it deserves report on this page, and the book should be explored further in the hope of finding something else that is critical, to be added to the article as well. You don't know when to stop. There are certain notable persons whose works have defined the notable arguments - these are the ones that deserve explanation. I think I represent the concern of the reader who wants to be properly informed - who wants intelligent explanation of what the main criticms of astrology are, not endless snippets of irrelevant half-informed condemnations of the subject -- Zac Δ 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a requirement for articles not sources, see WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of people agree that certain editors spend too much time rambling about nonsense, rather than constructive activities. That's why I quoted you and said it was ironic. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm beating my head against the wall, but please use the space below to propose specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac, that this issue "directly affects the content of this article" doesn't make it appropriate for the talk page. Laws concerning violations of free speech may directly impact the content of this article (or WP's ability to operate at all), but they aren't appropriate here either. The demographics or background of editors on WP may impact the content of the article, but discussing it here would be entirely inappropriate. We need simple and direct suggestions for improvement of the article, such as "Sentence X is wrong, according to Y source, and it should be changed to Z". If your aim is to change WP policy, then you need to discuss that somewhere else. The one issue you brought up was discussed 7 months ago in an RfC, and was properly decided according to WP:Weight. If you want to throw WP:Weight out the window, then make a proposal on WT:Weight. You could also open discussion at WP:Village pump (policy). Trying to ram the discussion through here is only going to result in frustration, and no change. That's hardly helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Tippy... In terms of constructive activities, only one editor has made more edits to the article than I have, and no one has contributed more to the existing content or supplied nearly as many references as I have, to justify the content made by others, neutral or critical of the subject. It is not a nonsense point that so many editors who have tried to contribute useful content have been forced to give up, realising that it's become useless to even try anymore -- Zac Δ 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Hippocrite - read the discussion above and you'll see that many editors were unhappy with the suggestion which has been turned into content. Sctechlaw hit the nail on the head when he said:

the proposed wording (and the current wording) is a caveat of mainstream smugness and scientific elitism, something that WP should avoid as bias. The current lead identifies astrology as a belief system: right there that tells the reader it is not mainstream science. A better approach than the proposed change would be to treat the issue like any belief system is treated, and avoid such smug protestations of rightness or wrongness. For instance, something like -- "Astrology had a long history as a science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." -- would be a less offensive description of the same sentiment.

I have pointed out that the content displayed in the lede is unverifiable and highly contentious. Three times the justifiable tag I placed has been removed without the issue being addressed. The lede is currently displaying false and unsupportable information. If one verifiable source could be found to approve the content I would not have a need to tag or raise the issue. It can't, but the editors here seem to think that tags designed to highlight problems only work one way on this subject. Who would want to be a party to working on this article whilst this attitude continues? -- Zac Δ 17:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heavy on rhetoric, light on "specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede." Unless you can explain the problem by pointing out specific text, there's no problem. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem has already been explained in the two comments I placed in the lede section earlier today. For brevity, I'll reproduce a little. But the problems continue right through the article. I would be ashamed to admit to contributing to the article in its current state. This lede comment is a sympton, not a cause -- Zac Δ 17:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is pure synth - and an outright lie to say that astrology is not taken serious by academic communities. And if scientific communities don't take it seriously, then why has the entire article been turned into an excuse to condemn astrology from a scientific point of view, with anything that doesn't rdidicule to the subject or presents its logic for what it is, reduced to the barest minimum?

Perhaps you don't understand. "specific concrete changes that you believe would "Fix" the lede." Provide them. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lede would be reliable if changed to:

Astrology has had a significant influence upon the history of science, but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community. Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, but no uncontroversial evidence has been found to support its claims.

The content in the 'Modern scientific appraisal' is completely unreliable, and that section needs serious attention. It starts off with a blatant lie: When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified.

But I'm done, since I don't believe for one second that there is collective editorial will towards accuracy and reliability at the moment, and my feeling is only one of disgust at being a past-contributor to what is now appearing on the main page.-- Zac Δ 18:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reliable peer-reviewed research that says that is a "blatant lie" because without that your claim is WP:BULLSHIT. — raekyt 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is worded in a way not reflective of the sources, in order to assign more significance and efficacy to Astrology than our quality sources give it. For example, the sentence "by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community" contains a full 3 qualifiers. You're implying that there is a non-mainstream, as well as a non-contemporary, non-fringe part of the scientific community which doesn't view Astrology as pseudoscience. What part of the scientific community is that? I don't see that anywhere except in low-quality, primarily Astrological, sources. You've also said "no uncontroversial evidence has been found". Same problem; you're implying that evidence exists to support Astrology's claims, but it's controversial (presumably within the scientific community, considering that's the subject of the sentence). If I haven't been clear yet, here's the problem: I see no quality scientific sourcing suggesting that scientific experiments were conducted which support Astrology in the scientific community, but that's what you're attempting to imply, and you're backing that up with non-scientific literature. See WP:GEVAL, WP:PARITY and WP:FRINGE to understand why that's a problem. Again, if you disagree with WP:Weight, then you need to address that at a policy page, not here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) OK, taking your proposed wording in sections. "Astrology has had a significant influence upon the history of science". That isn't sourceable, and is meaningless. You don't mean that it has had an influence on how the progress of science has been described. You mean that it used to be considered to be part of science, but that's not what you've written. "but today is treated as a pseudoscience by most of the contemporary mainstream scientific community." More accurate is "but today is treated as pseudoscience by the scientific community". The scientific community is mainstream by definition. Astrology is treated as the essence of pseudoscience, not as one little one-off pseudoscience. "Today" and "contemporary" are tautologous. "Some scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, but no uncontroversial evidence has been found to support its claims." Better: "no evidence has been found to support its claims". At this point we we would have to add that Popper regarded its claims as untestable. In fact he used the example of astrology's claims to explain why he thought falsifiability so important. He knew that his readership would immediately see that the boundaries of scientific enquiry must be drawn to exclude astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages approach is not to edit war over a tag for two hours.

• Misplaced Pages:Edit war

I see that for two hours, just recently, there's been an edit war over a tag, and mis-use of the edit summary as if it were a talk page. You will cut this out, now, or I'll start using administrator tools, starting with at the very least protecting The Wrong Version and working up from there. Edit summaries are for summarizing edits. I also proffer some wisdom from the Featured Article arena that writers here at this level should remember: issues must be specific and actionable. And with my reader hat on I say: Think of the readers, people! If you're going to cite (say) 249-page books, have the common decency to give us readers the page numbers. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Being rather new on this page, what strikes me is the mention of previous dispute over whether to include in the article an alleged refutation of Carlson's experiment. Does anybody have a link to that earlier discussion or remember what month it took place so I can search through the archive? Thanks, --Other Choices (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah I remember. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Search for Carlson in the Search the archive box. I found 16 results. You are probably looking for the most recent. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ahhh, another newbie moment, thanks.--Other Choices (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The page states that the section on ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ “is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring”. Yes, it's already overloaded though the recent addition of reference to Popper is warranted; in fact it ought to have development since his influence in defining the argument is notable. But these are the problems that exist and need to be recognised -

For over a month (I didn’t bother to look further) a significant number of edits and changes have been made and every one has been an attempt to either reduce the information on what astrology is about, or augment the ‘Modern scientific appraisal' section. Often, without any attention to notability, reliability, or that fact that good quality references were being removed and poor quality, unspecific references were being added. Very few of these edits had prior discussion or explanation.

By contrast, apart from odd minor edits, any editor who tried to contribute content that was not obviously hostile to the subject, or rectify misleading critical additions, had their edit reverted with the demand that they must get approval on the talk-page first. In the process, consideration was not given to the need to balance the overall content of the article, nor to how pre-existing references and the list of cited works was being screwed up.

To put an end to edit-wars, which become inevitable under these circumstances, can I suggest a short term agreement for all editors to cease all but minor edits whilst the situation is reviewed and the recent changes and proposals for new changes are properly discussed? This is not because I don’t want to see a strong case made for the criticisms against astrology, but the opposite. We have far too many irrelevant and non-applicable criticisms which rely on dubious sources. What we ought to focus on is developing a clear and well written explanation of what the notable criticisms are and who they were made by. We should look critically at the comments we currently have and make sure the report is robust. If the text is weak or contested it can be changed until the page reports the situation correctly and appropriately.

In the past I have steered clear of making any kind of edit or contribution to this section. That’s not my interest. I think the page should simply be clear that astrology is a pseudo-science, not a science, and in the Western world it hasn’t been conceived as a science for a long time. But since the desire to keep driving the point home is now wrecking the credibility of this article and the editors who contribute to it, we need to sort this out. I’ll be specific so that each point can be properly addressed. My recommended approach would be to remove or improve the dubious content in that section, see what really stands up to scrutiny, and then develop those points so that we have clear and uncontroversial explanations of what the most significant and notable points of interest are. Does anyone object to this request that we review the content collaboratively? -- Zac Δ 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a threat to continue edit-warring unless you get your way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zac, it seems to me that the "scientific appraisal" section is currently going through a growth phase, adding reliably-sourced content without too much concern for integration, so it's a bit messy and disjointed at the moment. The logical next phase will be one of digesting the new material and weighing the relevance of all the individual examples to the section as a whole. If we can avoid a confrontational attitude (not always easy to do around here), then other editors should be open to constructive criticism and will recognize that you and I are part of the consensus on this page. My personal view is that this article was weighted too heavily in a pro-astrology direction in the past; now things have gone too far in the opposite direction; but in the long run a better balance can be achieved. Part of what you and I find grating is the "pseudoscience" label because the clear trend in astrology is away from any attempt to explain astrology as scientific. However, there are still a lot of astrologers out there whose desperate craving for "respectability" leads them to eagerly latch onto any hint of scientific support, so the "pseudoscience" tag is still relevant. The culture is changing (as astrology slowly and uncertainly crawls back into the academic world in the west), but part of the nature of[REDACTED] is to be behind the curve, so I will do my best to graciously accept that I am often going to be part of a minority view around here.

Moving ahead, if and when things calm down (and please understand I'm in no hurry), I'm going to revisit the issue of the criticism of the Carlson experiment, paying careful attention to WP:PARITY. Even if I don't get my way, I'll learn more about the proper application of relevant[REDACTED] policies.

Further along, if I can get my hands on the various "reliable" histories of astrology, I intend to work on expanding the Western Astrology article. I know, for example, that the Sun Sign astrology columns emerged as a deliberate attempt to popularize astrology in American culture back in the day. This should be mentioned (in this article as well, especially if we're going to keep the Theodor Adorno criticism), but we need a source. And the story of how western astrology coped with the emergence of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (and then Chiron) should be covered as well.--Other Choices (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi OC, thanks for commenting. I agree with most of what you say, especially the point that this page has swung between being too pro and now too anti (and before it was too pro it was too anti: it's a cycle - maybe it's following some aspect pattern ? :). Re the digesting of new material - this needs to be done, which is why I am trying to isolate the problematic comments. Editors should not cling to every point just because it is on the page - let's get rid of the rubbish that wouldn't be accepted by anyone else's standards. I have no problem with the pseudoscience definition. I argue to ensure that definition is clearly stated. As far as scientific sources go, it's a reality so it needs to be reported as such. And it should be explained properly. Researchers and students come to this page for reliable information which should capture the notable issues succintly. This topic has long been in desperate need of editors that can contribute to the history and cultural theories of astrology. Since this is the main page for astrology, the content here should be summarising the information given in its spin-off articles, and a lot of those have areas that are badly in need of development. Your contributions are very valuable and very welcome as far as I'm concerned. -- Zac Δ 04:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Appraising the content of the ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ section

Looking critically at the introduction to the ‘Modern scientific appraisal’ section:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.:85 When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified.

Personally, I think it’s too extreme to say that astrology has no scientific validity. Astrology is a huge field; it uses many ways to gain practical information from the passages of celestial cycles, with some elements clearly containing scientific validity, and some of the sources used in this section actually make this point. But I accept that this point needs to be made clearly and firmly. I only suggest a small, and hopefully non-controversial edit to remove reference 75 at the end of the first sentence. We don’t need this because we have reference number 22 to support the comment. Zarka’s paper does not say that astrology has no scientific validity (it actually begins by pointing out the opposite) - what it says is “astrological practice is by no means scientific”.

The second part of the comment is more problematic. This is also attributed to Zarka, but again Zarka does not make this claim. The only remotely relevant comments are:

p.423 - In all but one published analysis of astrology, condition ([b) is generally fulfilled, but conditions (a ) and (c) are not satisfied. As a consequence, all their results are invalid. The only exception concerns the double blind test of Carlson, agreed by a panel of physicists and astrologers, and published in Nature in 1985 (Carlson 1985): fulfilling scrupulously the 3 above conditions, it demonstrated that astrology definitely fails at characterising somebody’s personality from its birth horoscope.

p.424 - The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable, and were falsified !

The point that Zarka makes is that only the Carlson test was found to falsify the reliability of astrological predictions, so our page content is very misleading by suggesting that “When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified".

To say such as implies Carlson is one of many, rather than being the only experiment which is reported as reliably falsifying astrology.

Of more significance it that this was Zarka's belief when he wrote his paper, but his paper was not published in 2011 (as our source suggests), it is a republication (without changes) of one published in Paris in January 2009. That can be viewed online here.

Zarka would be unlikely to make the same point today. When he wrote his paper he was unaware that the statistical expert Suitbert Ertel, Professor Emeritus at Gottingen University, had re-analysed the data and the methods used by Carlson, and found the experiment to be deeply flawed. Ertel’s re-evaluation stated that Carlson's claims were untenable, and that the astrologers had actually selected the correct profile as either their first or second choice at a rate significantly better than that expected by chance. Concern that the criticism of Carlson's experiment might cause the mainstream view of science to collapse, editors here prefer not to mention it - so here is the info that can be found elsewhere: http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/56655410/famous-test-of-astrology-is-seriously-flawed

To omit reference to the known controversy regarding the unreliability of Carlson’s test, for the sake of not allowing credibility to fringe, is one thing. To omit reference to the criticisms and then make a big issue about it being a “rigorous experiment” makes our report dishonest. In any case, the latter sentence in the opening comment should go – it is not reporting how the situation stands according to modern scientific appraisal, but inventing a position that is not supported by the source, which is not up-to-date on this point anyway.

I will put tags on the problematic comments whilst these issues are discussed. -- Zac Δ 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

1. No sources that satisfy WP:RS have called Carlson into question.
2. Only Zarka knows what Zarka might do today or tomorrow.
3. Refering to Carlson's experiment as "rigorous" is supported by Zarka ("fulfilling scrupulously").
4. No sources that satisfy WP:RS have ever shown astrology to have any scientific validity.

—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No we don't know what Zarka would do today or tomorrow, but we know that on that particular point he wrote at a time when the controversy was unknown (which makes the point unreliable for being out-of-date). But I'm sure you can see that you points you are making are not the ones presented in the disputed comment. We certainly can't attribute this to Zarka:

When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified. -- Zac Δ 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a counter example for the statement? If so, this would be a whole lot easier if you would simply give it. It almost sounds like you're trying to remove a statement you think is true. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? No, I think it's an unsupportable remark, best deleted for causing more problems than it's worth. Doesn't the first part of the comment cover the point sufficiently: "Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity". That's a very strong statement (too strong really, but there you go, I'm not making an issue about that if no one else objects to it). I would rather have the content of this section focussed on the main issues, robust and intelligent, than have endless petty debates because we're not reliably reporting what the reliable sources say. -- Zac Δ 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

By no scientific validity, it is meant that it is not falsifiable. This is contained in the Zarka text. Zarka also mentions the notable exception to the lack of falsifiable claims. All this is captured in the following, taken from Zarka's 2011 "Astronomy and astrology":

From that point, astrology is purely deductive. Its do- main of application is very broad (from natural and political predictions to individual ones and personality characterisation), but its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable (as clearly seen when comparing several interpretations of the same horoscope). The basic postulate is never questioned, except in rare works by isolated people, more subject to biases than team works (Gauquelin 1955, 1960; Benski et al. 1996). The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable ... and were falsified !

I hope that helps. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The issue about falsifiability is an important one and needs explanation in the article. It is highly relevant. I am not saying that Zarka doesn't raise the issue of falsifiability as many others do. In fact, more authorative sources exist to develop that point. I am saying that Zarka does not make any comment that we could say is accurately summarised by this: "When specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test, the predictions have always been falsified". -- Zac Δ 03:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph I gave can be summarized as exactly that and I've explained to you why. Moreover, you still have not given your counter-example. Or are you trying to remove a statement that you believe is true? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it wasn't indented sufficiently and so fell in line with yours - you didn't notice the reply I made to you earlier? -- Zac Δ 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

From my first point it would be safe to infer that there is no "controversy". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So Artifex, what do you suggest about the fact that the published comment is OR, not supported by the source? (At a time when the criticisms were unknown) Zarka was adamant that Carlson's test was the only one, a notable exception - so obviously we can't report plurals by saying "rigorous experimental procedures, such as in the Carlson test" ... and then puff it up with "always" for emphasis, to further imply there was more than one example cited. That is completely contrary to Zarka's point. The esiest solution is to cut this unreliable comment and develop the point by reference to what the sources actually state. Do you have a problem with that; if so, why? -- Zac Δ 05:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the text is supported by the source and reliable. The status of astrology as a "non-science" devoid of predictive capabilities is not in doubt. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The status of astrology as a non science is not compronised and doesn't need us to falsely report what our sources say to make the point. Can you explain why you say our reference to plurals - supported by a reference that specifies the importance of the singular - is reliable? What is the procedure for a situation like this, where an editorial amendment is needed because the source is misquoted, but I am being refused the ability to mark the questionable comment with a dubious-tag? These tags should not be removed whilst the discussion is active, as it is. They are supposed to draw attention from other editors so that fresh eyes get involved. I'd like to hear fromn IRWolfe since he added the comment but wonder whether this is a point that should be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard? -- Zac Δ 10:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me simplify this so that the uncontroversial problem doesn't get buried in words. The clear emphasis of our source is that the only experiment to fulfil the requirements of a statistical analysis of astrologers claims in practice was the Carlson test, and this was notable as the only test that was falsifiable. (Does anyone contest that this is what the source reports?)

We are effectively reporting that there have been a number of experiments that have fulfiled the requirements of a statistical analysis of astrologers claims, and referred to Carlson as one of them, and have emphasised the WP:OR by saying that these "always" falsify the astrologer's claims (again, implying more than the one notable example exists). So we are not reporting what the source says.

Ways to fix this:

• If Zarka is wrong then we should find a reliable source that contradicts him and reports that there has been more than one experiment where specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in rigorous experimental procedures and found against their claims - this is why a'dubious' tag is necessary, to show where the dubious content exists.
• Simply remove this part of remark, since it's not reliable, doesn't report what the source says, and the point can be developed elsewhere.
• Change the published comment so it does report what the source says. Something like "There has only been one occasion when specific falsifiable predictions from astrologers have been tested in a rigorous experimental procedure. This was the Carlson test, which found against the astrologers claims and is notable for setting a precedent that astrological claims are able to be falsified by the scientific method". (This is an easy editorial fix and the only reason I haven't made it myself, is so that everyone understands that this is not a pro or anti-astrology concern).

I do believe that some kind of reference to the fact that, through re-appraisal, the Carlson results were reversed, but my bigger concern is that anything reported on this page should be an accurate summary of the information presented in authorative sources at this time. (By being careful to report accurately what the sources say, we free ourselves of concerns about bias or controversies) -- Zac Δ 11:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just quote the key words from Zarka. "...its predictions and diagnostics are qualitative, fuzzy, and generally not falsifiable (as clearly seen when comparing several interpretations of the same horoscope). ... The notable exception is Carlson’s test (Carlson 1985), where predictions were falsifiable ... and were falsified !" Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a solution. Can you suggest how to tie the two sentences together? Something like this perhaps ?:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.:85 There are difficulties in testing the practice of astrology because .

-- Zac Δ 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Absence of falsifiability is not the same thing as "difficulties in testing". Popper needs to be mentioned before Zarka, because Zarka's words rely on an understanding of the centrality of falsification in scientific method. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I agree that this needs development, proper explanation and that Popper's argument should be referenced first. I have proposed a quick fix until that happens. Maybe you can suggest alternate quick fix. If not, then let's just delete the remark that is inaccurately reporting what the sources say, as something that is standing in the way of reliably sourced information.

Judith, you might be a good person to explain the relevant issues. I would suggest dropping unreliable comment, bringing up the Poppper remark, and then building in a reference to Zakara there if necessary. Zakara's work is not notable as Popper's is, but if no one else has a problem with using his paper as a source I don't. In general, he seems to have a good grasp of the issues. However, if he is to be used as a source for our comments, then he does have to be reported accurately. -- Zac Δ 14:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Zarka only states that this is the most notable one, he doesn't specifically say there aren't others but that the Carlson experiment is a notable exception (as in a famous exception). Also, Zarka statement that "astrology has none of the attributes of a true science." is exactly the same as saying it has no scientific validity. Zarka goes further than we do in the article by stating that: "It has been shown elsewhere that it is neither a humanity, that its psychological use dangerous and that its exploitation is alienating and mostly criticable." He doesn't explicitly rule out other studies, and neither should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is clear enough. I gave the link to the paper and quoted from it for the sake of transparency (see above): "In all but one published analysis of astrology, condition ([b) is generally fulfilled, but conditions (a ) and (c) are not satisfied. As a consequence, all their results are invalid. The only exception concerns the double blind test of Carlson" - in that comment he does specifically say that there aren't others. He is not saying "notable exception" as in this being a "famous exception" - he says "only exception" and elsewhere calls it notable because of this.

I am not pursuing the "no scientific validity" remark, though it is not correct to say that having none of the attributes of a "true science" equates to a subject having no scientific validity. You overlook that Zarka begins with reasons why the influence of celestial bodies on Earth has several obvious manifestations and "factual influences", and that its postulate "although very speculative, is not a priori absurd, nor supernatural, metaphysical, religious or anti-scientific". It is not the postulate that has been subject to experiment. Zarka is careful in his wording "We can thus confidently conclude that astrological practice is by no means scientific".

Also note the relevant comments of Zarka's conclusion. Some of these points are significant as explanations of why belief in astrology has not been eradicated despite its dissasociation from science. Zarka offers a far more thoughtful, balanced and accurate report of the real situation than we do (despite his reference to Carlson being out of date)

By deliberately focusing on the explanation of observational facts, science (since 19th century) has eradicated metaphysical speculations from its field of interest, letting humana free of its interpretation beyond the scientific explanation, but at the same time abandoning the subject of human destiny. In the 20th century, via sociology of sciences, science carried a self-critical analysis of its activity, tools and results. Its rapidly growing complexity and specialisation, and the lethal technology that it enabled (the bomb !) achieved to separate science from the public, who does not perceive any longer any global progress related to science. In other words this led to the “disenchantment” of science (Adorno 2000).

In parallel, the so-called “post-modern relativism” (not Einstein’s one !) that developed in the 1980s with the support of numerous scientists (e.g. Latour (1991)) pretended to relegate any knowledge to belief, and to consider all beliefs of equal value. Together with the increasingly rational appearance of astrology (computer ephemeris, imitation of the scientific discourse), this contributed to attenuate the apparent differences between science and astrology, at least for the public.

But together with its rational appearance, astrology has the immense advantage to proposes a global, holistic approach for apprehending the world, via a link between humans and the cosmos. Astrological belief is not a paradox in a world of generalised belief in scientifico-technological “black boxes” (telephone, electricity, etc). In addition, astrology seems to bring a psychological support to its believers, especially to “fragile” populations (unemployed, students, isolated people, etc) (Kunth & Zarka 2005; Zarka & Kunth 2006). It also benefits from a political economical “tolerance”, because it can be a tool in the hands of politicians, and its industry is prolific (Kunth & Zarka 2005; Zarka 2005).

-- Zac Δ 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the obvious answer to the issue is to look for a review of all of, or most of, the tests and see what they conclude. They being a more reliable source for the validity of tests: it's been mentioned a few times that reliability depends on what you want to do with it. I was merely using Zarka in his capacity as a secondary source for some non-controversial points. We could simply change the wording to "When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified." IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a suitable fix which removes the concern over OR. It allows us to keep the reference to Zarka as a support for the comment, and leaves the option open for the issue of falsifiability to be raised be at a place where it can get a better explanation. -- Zac Δ 18:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

We have the Cosmic source which states

In hundreds of scientific tests, astrological predictions have never proved to be accurate by a substantially greater margin than expected from pure chance. Similarly, in tests in which astrologers are asked to cast horoscopes for people they have never met, the horoscopes fail to match actual personality profiles more often than expected by chance. The verdict is clear: The methods of astrology are useless for predicting the past, the present, or the future.

— A cosmic perspective, 5th edition, pp86

That should suffice as a broad interpretation of the single studies. SÆdon 21:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that is sufficient. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Noting for the record. Your basis for an "authoritative" criticism of Carlson's test is by the same individual who is also a defender of the flawed Mar's effect which didn't adjust for the multiple comparisons and (which also failed independent verification where Gauquelin tried to get them to add/remove entries!). I also can not find any evidence that Suitbert is a statistical expert: In fact he appears to have done things that no statistician would do, including picking what to look at after the fact (remember those points raised by Zarka?). The news report you link to also contains well known misconceptions: "Another concern focused on publication of the research paper in Nature's Commentary section, the only articles section of the journal that is at the editor's discretion. Content published here is not subjected to the peer review process." This is actually just just flat out incorrect, Nature peer reviews the commentary section (Carlson states it included a notable psychologist) as well. Suitbert's paper also had no significant peer review since it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: A journal which does a poor job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In fact some of Suitbert's claims on the study seem to be just plain wrong. See . These are some of the reasons why it is not authoritative or suitable for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested re-arrangement of text for intro to Modern Scientific appraisal section

The first four paragraphs in the Modern scientific appraisal section are:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.:85 When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified.

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." One well-documented and referenced paper, for instance, which conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, found no support for astrological accuracy.

Philosopher of science, Karl Popper, regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards.":44

In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment."

Editorially, the comments seem disjointed, and visually it's ugly. Having four stubby paragraphs together makes it look like snippets of disconnected points being listed, rather than an explanation of what matters in this section. Without making any text changes, a simple re-arrangement would allow one point to flow more naturally into the next. For example:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.:85 In a lecture in 2001, Stephen Hawking stated "The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment." Philosopher of science, Karl Popper, regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment", but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards.":44 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." One well-documented and referenced paper, for instance, which conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, found no support for astrological accuracy. When specific predictions from astrologers were tested in rigorous experimental procedures in the Carlson test, the predictions were falsified.

Does anyone envisage a problem with this? -- Zac Δ 19:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraphs are stubs because I do intend to expand them (the first three at least). putting them together like that looks a bit SYNTHy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not Synthy is it, if each one is accurate and is reporting reliably. It's just explanation, which is what we are supposed to be doing as editors: See WP:SYNTHNOT:

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis."

This doesn't prevent you developing and expanding. In fact I hope you do. It's a short term measure for what is on the page right now, which is all we have to work on until changes are actually proposed. No disrespect but I keep coming across comments from last year where I kept promising to expand "next week". -- Zac Δ 21:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind putting them together as a temporary measure (they would still be disjointed either way), but I would say that the current ordering is significantly better. I would just put together the first two paragraphs into one, and then the third and fourth paragraphs into one. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mundane Astrology

Note this discussion about Zac's reinstatement of an article that was merged to Astrology/History of Astrology, following an AfD: Talk:Mundane_astrology#Posting_discussion_regarding_the_return_to_redirect. I have suggested the content be merged here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my talk on that page, I endorse IRWolfie's suggestion, with the further suggestion that after the merger, the content (as re-created by Zac) be promptly considered for spinning off as a new Mundane Astrology article. My impression is that the new article has enough content to stand on its own, but of course other editors will want to take a look.--Other Choices (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Popper ref

I haven't personally checked ref 74 which substantiates the opening comment of the Modern scientific appraisal section - but the definition of 'pseudoscience' is something I've been interested in exploring for a few years, and I'm not aware of anyone quoting that comment as an authorative reference for the argument. Ref 73, I believe, should be removed. It lacks any sense of authority or credibility. The Dawkins ref only gives Dawkins opinion in an informal format, and the second part of the ref goes to a website which has no critical assesment or quality control. Using the Dawkins ref to support the views of Dawkins is fine, but it does not qualify a comment as strong as 'Astrology is a pseudoscience'.

On the other hand, IRWolfie has just put some very good content on the page to explain the views of Popper, who tends to be regarded as the authority for astrology's pseudoscience status. So can we please replace poor-quality weak references of dubious reliability with good quality refrences where we can easily do that - and have the pseudoscience statement refrenced to Popper, or some other source of equal validity and weight? -- Zac Δ 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've switched the source with the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I may use the Dawkins source at a later point. I am not sure why you consider by Andrew Fraknoi unreliable. Noting that astrology is a pseudoscience isn't particularly controversial and does not require WP:EXCEPTIONAL to be met. As many sources as desired exist but I don't want a cite overkill, I may get some high quality sources and combine them anyway into a single reference, thus avoiding WP:OVERCITE. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just heads up that I found an indepth scholarly source on astrology in Chaucer, good history pf ideas stuff, where the author dissociated herself in no uncertain terms from present-day astrology. I want to access it again for Chaucer, and that shows it is not only natural scientists but also social scientists that regard astrology as pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for switching the Dawkins ref.

Re the ref to the Skeptics Resource List. Even if you or I don't think the point is particularly controversial, look back through the talk page archives and consider how many years of editing time have been wasted in arguments about this word and the policies over whether we may or must make reference to it on this page. The only way to put an end to the emotive reaction is to make sure that the content related to that Pse-point is as intelligently written and robustly referenced as possible. Having mutliple references is fine; though I prefer to see all mutliple refs linked into one because, as you say, cite overkill looks bad. But each ref should be able to justify the point on its own right - like if all the controversy in the world rested on that ref, would it justify our statement as a fact, by itself, in the way that Popper's does? Then we've just fixed the big Pse-problem here (don't you think?).

On the other hand the benefit of good quality referencing is all wiped away if we show no sense of discrimination and intellectual integrity by additionally referencing our crucial comment to 'A skeptic's Resource List' - the very name of which smacks of being agenda-driven. That site has no signature of academic respectability or critical assesment, so it's an unecesssary ref that takes away more than it adds. A reader who is favourable to the subject is likely to feel that the only reason it has been included, when the point has been sufficiently made, is so that someone here can 'dump on their subject'.

So even though policy doesn't dictate that 'exceptional' needs to be met; I think we should choose to raise the bar ourselves and ensure that, where and when we can, our references are as strong and non-controversial as they can be. -- Zac Δ 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, what significance is that? Can we not end the desire to want to reference all and any author who makes a crititicsm, regardless of how inconsequential that author's view has been on world opinion.?

I said it was just a headsup. When you see the quality of the Chaucer commentary you will be as overawed as I was - but there is a whole load of stuff on Chaucer. Look, scholars call astrology pseudoscience. They really do. You can call it professional closure if you like. You can start reading Feyerabend, but the time investment may not pay off. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I really know that. What makes you think I don't? Even Robbins, who translated Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, referred to it as a pseudoscience in his 1947 translation. Honestly, this is not a shocker and there's no reason for us to treat it as one. Neither should we assume (or imply) that anyone who refers to it as a pseudoscience must therefore be filled with contempt for the subject, because that's far from the case. And yes Feyerabend is a very good source. Why do you assume I should start reading his work? I'm pretty sure I was the one who added the link to his paper as a reference last year. It was definitely on here and I have no idea why or when it was taken off-- Zac Δ 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfashionable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah - beware the fashions of the times. Nothing lasts forever does it? Still think he is a source worth including as a reference -- Zac Δ 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another report deemed to be a 'classic' for this issue: - Paul R. Thagard, 'Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience', PSA, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Falsifiability

I just noticed that the Popper section currently contradicts the others. It says that astrology is unfalsifiable, but we also describe experiments that have falsified astrology (e.g. in the second sentence). We should clarify (or perhaps Popper did) that at least some of astrology's claims are falsifiable, and that when people have tested them they have indeed been falsified. The idea that the positions of the planets etc have specific effects on humans is testable - it becomes a pseudoscience when, after you have tested it and found it false, you ignore the evidence or invent rationalizations. I would say that it is the claim plus the rationalizations that makes something unfalsifiable for the person who accepts the rationalizations - because they will find some way to reject the falsification. (Or if the claim becomes sufficiently vague/imprecise to not be meaningfully testable, etc - which are the statements that are unfalsifiable a priori). Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, the only experiment that was supposed to have applied proper scientific methods was Carlson's, and that was later reappraised and found to be flawed in its design (with the reversed results finding in favour of astrologers claims - in case you're interested).

The fact is that astrology as a principle remains unfalsifiable. The only thing that was supposed to have been falsified by Carlson was the reliability of the practice of astrology, as dependent on the those - what was it, 18? - astrologers being representative of all astrological practice. (Of course, when I say "the only thing" I'm disregarding Ertel's claim that the results of the experiment were falsified too).

Editorially we have to take a stance on Carlson. As someone who doesn't believe WP should be telling half-truths I think that Carlson's experiment should be dropped from the page as non-notable, or it should include some indication that it's reliability has been questioned by independent review. Alternatively, (if you prefer half-truths) then we report on the case of Carlson, and that the reason for its notability (the only reason really) was that it (supposedly) contradicted the unfalsifiable theory. Then we can make reference to other authoritative accounts of why astrology is still deemed to be a pseudoscience despite of this. -- Zac Δ 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer lies in Thaggard - I gave the details and link in the above section. Thaggard explains why astrology cannot be condemned as pseudoscientific on the grounds of falisifiability afterall, and builds on Popper's work to propose a new definition of what properly constitutes a pseudoscience. -- Zac Δ 01:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the validity or notability of the Carlson experiment, or the status of astrology as a pseudoscience. Are you saying that as a principle it is impossible to test whether the positions of the planets affect humans? Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say the Carlson study was not notable do you base that on the fact that it was published by one of the most reputable scientific journals in the world and has been cited 51 times by other published articles or do you base it on the fact that it happens to be one of many tests that demonstrate your fancy to be farcical? Also, can you link us to the reputable peer reviewed journal that published a rebuttal to Carlson that found in the favor of the astrologers? Thanks, the only rebuttal I know of was published in a sham journal that, IIRC, Jimbo Wales once had to explain to you was based on crackpot BS. Sædon 01:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Saedon - you can look into the past as well as the future. You never stop amazing me. I remember this, and remember being struck by his genious of being able to re-analyse and completely reverse his position so quickly (after confessing to not know much about it). I just can't understand why, after years of open-minded exploration of this issue, I didn't understand that it was resolved there and then. Could it be that I'm more persuaded by the authority of Professor Emeritus Dr Suitbert Ertel who investigated with no axe to grind?

Carlson's paper was published 30 years ago when even Nature didn't have the criteria checking reputation it has now. There is no way in the world that young Carlson's experiment would stand up to modern statistical analysis, as Ertel demonstrated - or considered suitable in that journal now. Ertel's reputation made him to be a reliable source. The fact it, it was re-appraised and overturned in its findings by those who investigated it according to modern scientific methods. That's a notable point of controversy if we are going to report on it. As to my own opinion, I don't think that Carlson's findings, or Ertel's reappraisal carries any significance. A handful of astrologers were put under artificial conditions, and I don't hold the view that astrology is a purely objective practice. So actually, it's all a red herring, but I do so hate it when half-truths are told. -- Zac Δ 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this garbage info about Nature but I'm assuming it's the same place you get your physics. Nature has been a respected publisher since its inception in the 19th century and had a rigorous review process in the 80s. The fact that you would attempt to discredit Nature while believing that something like SciEx is worth mentioning is quite telling on your part - it's beyond ridiculous. Further, Nature, like all real journals, retracts articles retrospectively if it is found that there are substantiated criticisms. So while Ertel may have moved you - an astrologer - he failed to actually convince other scientists of his position (i.e. people actually educated in statistics and analysis). I don't think I'll have to go far out on a limb here to assume that you've never actually studied statistics, and you have clearly shown that you do not have the expertise to comment on said analysis - it just happens to fit your pseudoscientific POV.

So your long-winded response to my simple request for you to point me to a reliable source that criticizes Carlson can be summed up as "I don't have one." Sædon 21:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you cannot logically say that astrology is unfalsifiable and also say that Carlson's experimental results (when "reinterpreted") may have supported astrology. If something is unfalsifiable, there can be no evidence for or against it. This is part of the nature of evidence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is correct - it raises a logical contradiction, which is why I gave my advise on how it can be resolved. In your earlier post you asked "Are you saying that as a principle it is impossible to test whether the positions of the planets affect humans?" So to clarify, no - I'm saying that the principle of astrology is not able to be falsified - certain elements of its theory and practice can be put to the test, but even if disputed these cannot falsify its principle. Thaggard is a good ref to read - the Zarka paper (ref 76 in the article) touches on the issue too. Popper Feyerabend and Thaggard are well known sources of discussion for the argument. -- Zac Δ 02:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, regarding the question of whether the positions of the planets "affect" humans, this is a point where scientists and other critics of astrology typically misunderstand or misrepresent modern astrology, which doesn't claim a causal connection. Such a view is generally incomprehensible to people whose understanding of reality is limited by empiricism. Of course for the article, this is irrelevant until somebody comes up with a reliable source that deals with this issue; but perhaps you will agree that it is helpful for editors on this page to be aware of the issue.--Other Choices (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources that discuss it, then that probably indicates that it is not worth discussing.

Please could editors stick to discussing the article and quit proselytising. Formerip (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but not probably on that basis alone. Unless the policies change, controversial and even disreputable theories, which no reliable sources endorse, can be discussed on the basis of notability. It's not proselytising to attempt to explain how this relates (or rather doesn't relate) to the astrological principle. Philosophers of science managed to figure this out, and they still determined astrology to be a pseudoscience - they did that by understanding and analysing the astrological argument, not by being ignorant of it. -- Zac Δ 10:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Other Choices: That's perfectly correct. If it hasn't been mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't get mentioned in WP. You're catching on quick! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Better to be correct than quick. Your summary is not definite, but applies only where notability cannot be established. Please respond to the points above, or adhere to the policy requirement of WP:TALKNO and WP:BLPTALK, from which I quote -

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. ...The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.

It would be helpful if you would demonstrate the willingness to adhere to WP policy, if you want to make posts here concerning it. -- Zac Δ 10:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

aw hell, Zac, let the little stuff slide. That way you'll have more cred among outside editors when there's a big issue to deal with. --Other Choices (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's that little thing I have, about the editorial policy of this page not being one I'd feel ashamed to be a part of. So until DV corrects or verifies what appears to be wholly unjustifiable negative insinuations against named living persons, in response to the complaint we've had about them and in line with WP policy, then I'm not willing to be a contributor to this page, and quite frankly couldn't give a fig about my cred amongst outside editors. I suggest you don't delete your post - it's a testimony to how editors here have become conditioned into thinking that its not OK to refer to the views of another editor as 'arrogant' but it's perfectly OK to entertain long passages of off-topic insulting insinuations when they concern the professional reputations of those involved in the study of this subject. I'll take this page off my watchlist for now. Let me know via my talk page if he, or anyone else, does shows any inclination to adhere to policy, by removing, deleting or oversighting the innapropriate remarks-- Zac Δ 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to argue the point, but... it wouldn't surprise me if Sagittarius is prominent in your horoscope. Sometimes rigid adherence to high-minded principles simply isn't practical. I'll let you know if the general atmosphere on this talk page improves.--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sædon 02:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will forgo replying to Zac and OC and ask my original question again (which has nothing to do with the validity or notability of the Carlson experiment). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, I offered an answer of sorts to your question on my talk page.

@Formerip, you and I don't know that there aren't any reliable sources with an accurate summary of what modern western astrologers actually believe. I hope you will agree that any such sources should be mentioned in the article.

--Other Choices (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify what question remains unanswered? The only one I understood was the one I replied to above (see last post in this diff. As you can see, my answer has nothing to do with the validity of Carlson either. Carlson is just a red-herring in the greater scheme of things. -- Zac Δ 10:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's work has not been invalidated by any subsequent scholarship that I can see. I am discounting Ertel because I think he didn't publish his results. Correct me if I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To correct you Judith, Suitbert Ertel published his results in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is not deemed a reliable source for determining mainstream opinion. The methods and weighting approaches taken by Carlson were also refuted by psychologist Hans Eysenck and published in the Astrological Association's Journal. The reputations of both of these investigators are well established. We reference Eysenck as a critic of astrology, in ref 84 of the main article, and again in ref 85. His work is used to support the principle that belief in the accuracy of astrological reports "could be psychologically explained as a matter of cognitive bias.. See our section on 'Cognitive bias'.

The problems with the earlier reports of the Carlson criticsms is that content did not adhere to WP:WEIGHT, but instead presented the findings of the reappraisal as if it had established a new mainstream position. That approach was obviously wrong. -- Zac Δ 11:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But none of this counts as "published". Publishing, for academics means academic publishing. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Carlson, eventually I'm going to suggest adding a little sentence something like, "The results of the Carlson experiment have been challenged in astrology and other fringe journals," with a reference citing Eysenck and Ertel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You would still need a reliable source substantially and seriously discussing the challenge and establishing the fact that it is considered significant within the scholarly community. Sourcing it to Eysenck and Ertel would violate WP:NOR. Even if such a source could be found, you would be obigated to give the mainstream reaction to Eysenck and Ertel's work per WP:WEIGHT.

As for them being recognized experts in their respective fields, it doesn't count for much if they are presenting a minority view. As a matter of fact, it works against them, as they had every opportunity to publish their work in real journals. The fact that they didn't is very strong evidence that the work was of insufficient quality to be accepted, and was therefore either rejected or not submitted because the were sure it was going to be rejected.

Scholars have a very powerful incentive to get their work published in real scholarly journals, where their work will be read and cited by other scholars in real scholarly journals. The most "objective" yardstick of a scientist's reputation is how many times they have been cited in real scholarly journals. It's always a major factor in professional advancement, especially tenure review or habilitation, and a very big factor in getting funding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears the only reason you hold it with such authority is because it agrees with your POV I will reshow my earlier post: Your basis for an "authoritative" criticism of Carlson's test is by the same individual who is also a defender of the flawed Mar's effect which didn't adjust for the multiple comparisons and (which also failed independent verification where Gauquelin tried to get them to add/remove entries!). I also can not find any evidence that Suitbert is a statistical expert: In fact he appears to have done things that no statistician would do, including picking what to look at after the fact (remember those points raised by Zarka?). Note that Nature peer reviews the commentary section (Carlson states the review included a notable psychologist) as well. Suitbert's paper had no significant peer review since it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: A journal which does a poor job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. In fact some of Suitbert's claims on the study seem to be just plain wrong. See . If you hold the journal of scientific exploration with such regard see this paper "JH McGrew et al, A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990", which also found evidence against astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

For the most part astrologers make vague statements which are not falsifiable. When specific astrologers do make specific predictions in rigorous conditions they are shown to be at an ability no greater than that expected by chance. When the predictions thus fail they change the goal posts or make spurious claims as to why it failed. That is, the specific predictions can falsified, but there is no experiment that will cause astrologers to abandon their belief system, thus it is astrology as a whole which is not falsifiable and so it is not science. Note that astrologers hold on to their beliefs seemingly from Confirmation bias, they latch on to poor studies published in unreliable sources which agree with their biases. Also, bear in mind that there is no universal agreement amongst astrologers as to what astrology can predict Astrology#Lack_of_clarity, some stick to generic vague statements that are meaningless, while others agree to make specific predictions for the tests. I find a belief system that thinks there is "a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" but can't make any predictions from that connection pointless but that is neither here nor there. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. :-) I think something like this is what is missing in the section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, I'm not sure if your comment about "holding it with such authority" was in answer to me or to Zac. For my part, I haven't seen Eysenck or Ertel. I'll share my own views on Carlson in response to your post on my talk page, as time permits.

@DV, I wasn't planning on getting into the Carlson debate so soon, but the moment seems to have crept up on me, so...

(1) I don't think mention of Eysenck and Ertel violates WP:OR, as long as the proposed language clearly indicates that the sources in question aren't mainstream science. Both sources have an editorial review process, which meets the basic[REDACTED] criterion for reliable sources.

(2) WP:PARITY states that "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review." It seems to me that the views of adherents of astrology regarding the Carlson experiment should be given a brief mention in the astrology article (with an appropriate citation, of course), per WP:NPOV.

(3) Of course mainstream reaction to Eysenck and Ertel would also be in order. This could be easily achieved by amending my proposed sentence to read something like: "The Carlson experiment has been criticized in astrology and other fringe journals, but this criticism has been dismissed as groundless by the scientific community." (with references to the debunking of Eysenck and Ertel.) This way the readers of the article are made aware of the controversy, and will know where to look if they are interested in exploring the matter further.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is zero chance of us using a crap publication to criticize Nature - I'm surprised DV even entertained the thought and I have a feeling that if anything he was being hypothetical. I posted a link above to a conversation that Zac started with Jimbo on his talk page about these very sources - you should read through it.

You are misreading WP:PARITY; the point of that policy is to allow us to use less than stellar sources on subjects that don't have mainstream coverage in order to prohibit WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE views from being asserted uncontested. It is not an excuse to use bad sourcing to criticize mainstream, accepted science. Rather, the quote you used would allow us to use crap sourcing as a WP:PRIMARY representation of what certain groups think about themselves.

Lately this talk page has started to look like it did before the last round of astrology bannings. You and Zac need to give the arbcom pseudoscience ruling a better read and seriously start adhering to our policies on pseudoscience. The educated, mainstream academic world has rejected astrology for decades now and WP is not the place to push your fringe POVs. Sædon 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, it violates OR, because you need a reliable independent sources stating the Ertel and Eysenck's critiques are seriously considered in real-world scholarly discussions on the topic. We don't care what happens in-universe, unless it is discussed and commented upon by the real0world scholarly community. Also, both sources fail WP:RS by a mile. Neither can be considred a scholarly journal in any sense of the word. They have no credible academic editorial or peer review process. And to counter a an article in Nature, you need a real-world academic publication of similar credibility in the scientific community.

1) You're misquoting and cherry-picking WP:PARITY and come to a false conclusion. There is no period after the words "peer review". Notice the parts you left out:

"Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

Notability is the issue here. Who (outside of the fringe community) says Ertle and Eysenck's opinions are notable and part of the real-world scholarly discussion on Carlson's paper? In which independent reliable sources do they say this?

Like Saedon said, this is largely an hypothetical discussion, because of }. Nature and fringe astrological journals are so disparate in terms of scientific credibility that there is no justification for even briefly mentioning the latter unless they have been substantially discussed and commented on in real scientific publications. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Arc de Ciel, I will attempt to clarify things when further working on the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Theological criticism

The modern Jewish view should also get some mention in this section, with a wikilink to the article we have about it: Jewish views on astrology
MakeSense64 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the other article is an unmitigated disaster, content for this article would probably need to be done from scratch. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the attempt to changing the title of this section from 'Theological criticisms' to 'Theological viewpoints'. It is obviously an attempt to mask the fact that you are systematically removing all sensible and objective information and are only interested in developing a thoroughly biased account of this subject using poor quality, unreliable and uninformed sources - according to your theory that astrological information cannot come from astrological sources, but criticism can come from any crappy source. No doubt you will revert my edit instantly, having bullied all editors off this page except those that have shown their proven bias and hostily. -- Zac Δ 18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no call for your continual incivility on this talk page, focus on content not editors. Considering I've removed little from this article beyond the education section I fail to see how I'm "removing all sensible and objective information". If you think the theological section is overly focused on criticism, then get some reliable sources and add more content. Which "poor quality, unreliable and uninformed" are you referring to? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I've already stated I wish to have no involvement with the disreputatble editing that is going on here under the name of WP policies. You are abusing WP to suit your own purpose. I've tried to raise logial objections but the bullying tactices ensure they are all a waste of time. No need to repeat - I've made my views clear enough. Just don't be so false as to rename a criticisms section 'viewpoints', to try to cover up for the fact that, really, your editorial interest is in steering the whole article into one long criticism of the subject, and reducing non-critical content, or details of its principles, by trying to pretend the refs are inadequate when they are prefectly reliable refs for non-controversial summaries of the subject. Oh I'm sure you'll leave the Indian and Chinese world view sections alone, and probably the historical material will be safe so long as it is bland and doesn't go into any of the significant philosophical issues. You're already well on the way now that you've removed the connection between Ptolemy's and Kepler's work. And if you can't see how basing your criticisms section on half-informed non-substantiated sources like The Cosmic Perspective is pretty crappy for such weighty issues, then I'm sure nothing I have to say will persuade you otherwise. -- Zac Δ 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Poorly referenced sections

The sections Astrology#Core_principles, Astrology#World_traditions and Astrology#History appear to be very poorly referenced and constructed with an over-reliance on primary and unreliable sources, and some synthesis thrown in too. I think their current poor state lets the article down the most. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the Core Principles and the first paragraph of the History especially stand out. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be wary of removing any of the content that fails verification because I suspect we won't be left with much of an article, note that there are appropriate tags such as: {{failed verification}}{{verify-inline}}{{cn}}{{syn}} etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

True. I've added the phrasing from the History of Astrology article, which contains the failed-verification source but does not seem as problematic. Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)