This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
I reverted this edit [1]. We should not suggest that only WESTERN astrological traditions have been rejected by the scientific community. MakeSense64 ( talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what to do with the last two paragraphs in this section. They are tagged with multiple issues, and I wonder why we need to explain things like the seven classical planets, the IAU definition of planets and "cuneiform depictions for the determinative MUL (star)..."(huh??).. in what is supposed to be simply the etymology of "astrology". MakeSense64 ( talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Per FormerIP's question above, I offer some quotations from the first chapter of
Brockbank's dissertation (pp. 21-56), titled "Astrology and the Empirical":
-- Other Choices ( talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I had moved the paragraph about astrology's status in India to the "scientific appraisal" section and Dominus Vobisdu reverted it:
[2].
I still think this paragraph better belongs where I had put it, because if the "scientific appraisal" of astrology is different in India then we should mention it there, not in the "cultural influence" section where it appears out of place. Personally, I don't agree with the Indian view upheld by their high court, but we are supposed to be neutral. This has relevance for the scientific status of astrology, but I do not think it deserves more weight than it gets right now. If we agree that this needs to be in the article, then all we need to do is find concensus where to best put it.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I proposed the following external link for addition to the Hindu astrology article: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied". As it contains an extended historical comparison between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs with a discussion of the zodiac's importation to India from Greece, I would like to suggest it for addition to this article as well.-- Other Choices ( talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, some <Vedic astrologers> are not willing or able to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression, tell their opponents that they have no competence at all, ridicule them, or accuse them of telling lies or wanting to destroy Hindu culture."
Recently the first sentence of the lede was changed from "Astrology consists of a number of
belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" to "Astrology consists of a number of
belief systems which hold that astronomical phenomena predict or cause events in the human world." I just reverted it for the second time, and I won't touch it again (if somebody re-reverts) to avoid edit warring. I'm going to have my say right here and let other editors do what they will with it.
I don't think this is a good change for the following reasons:
I propose merging in: Hard aspect (astrology), Angle_(astrology), Yod (astrology), Promittor_(astrology), Orb (astrology), Dissociate aspect (astrology), Kite aspect and Departing aspect (astrology) as well as others from in Category:Astrological aspects, into a single section in this article. There are far too many sub-articles on technical aspects of astrology which likely fail the test of notability. If it gets too large, it can be rolled off as a single combined article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Recently MakeSense64 added a sentence to the Hindu astrology sub-section that was sourced to a self-published book by "in-universe" astrologer James Braha. I raised the concern that this wasn't a reliable source, but no other editor shared this concern, and the addition to the article was allowed to stand. If the editors on this page continue to consider Braha to be a reliable source, that's fine with me. I've added another sentence to the beginning of the Hindu astrology sub-section using a different book by the same author and publisher. If other editors now decide to revert, based on the logical view that Braha is NOT an acceptable source, then I think it would be consistent to also delete the other sentence that is sourced to Braha.-- Other Choices ( talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's help those who have joined us in midstream and tell them the fuss is about the following statement, which was once the opening of the Vedic section. It is attributed to Mr. Braha:
Hindu astrology is oriented toward predicting one's fate or destiny.
I won't tell you this is generally accepted as true, as Mr. Braha has dressed up the fact that the majority of Indians want to know when they will get married, when they will get a job, when they will get promoted, if they will ever get rich, if their sons will make them rich, if their daughters will be beauties and attract handsome suitors - who will make them rich. Indians who consult pandits are not spiritual at all. They're very practical. They want money.
Without the fancy "fate" and "destiny," you could get pretty much the same statement from virtually any Indian astrologer. Here is K.N. Rao, generally regarded as the leading, living Vedic astrologer, taken from the back of Risks and Tricks in Astrological Predictions, published by Vani Publications, Delhi, second edition, 2007:
The essence of Hindu astrology is its predictive brilliance with manifold techniques. Eighteen rishis who gave us jyotisha and many more, whose name is less known, have contributed to the richest repertoire of predictive techniques of Hindu astrology.
You could use that, but, oh, wait. Neutral point of view and all that. By contrast, the current opening statement, Hindu astrology originated with western astrology, is David Pingree's private opinion. Careful examination of the Yavana Jataka (it's properly two words, not one), the source of Pingree's claim, does not support his premise. Pingree was an expert in ancient Greek and Middle Eastern texts. A casual comparison of Vettius Valens' Anthologies - Greek astrology - with Vedic astrology, shows Indian astrology to be internally consistent. Greek astrology was not (ref: Greek Horoscopes by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, 1959). This is largely due to the fact that equal house horoscopes only work in tropical climes, such as that of India. Take them out of the tropics and with every degree past 30 N, they break down, but that's what the Greeks had because they did not have an effective counting system. (Starting around 300 AD, the Indians did.) Alexandria is at 31 N. The latitude problem, combined with the number problem, explains both Chinese astrology, as well as the delayed arrival of astrology in medieval Europe. So how, exactly, could the Indians profit from a faulty Greek system?
The western assertion, there are no earlier Indian texts, ignores oral transmission. Which Shri Rao has found to still be in existence, throughout modern India. Here is the concluding paragraph from the back of Risks and Tricks:
From time to time, all over India I came across astrologers who used some of these techniques which are hinted at only in some books but not elaborated. I tried them, modified or added to them sometimes from my own experience.
Rao makes the same claim in some of his other books. Given that I have a library of approximately 500 Vedic titles, Rao is in fact the only source for what he claims is unique. If, after the Mongol invasion, the English colonization and the partition of the late 1940's, Rao can still find oral transmission, it is presumably deeply entrenched. Indian astrology in fact goes far, far beyond anything the Greeks ever imagined. Again, I have the books in my library.
I've had a glimpse at Tibetan astrology. Much of it was organized around the human hand, as in, counting on your fingers. The Chinese were never that crude.
This is a lot of effort to expend on an opening sentence. The current Wiki editors have, I presume, seen only one or two Vedic astrology books and are clearly out of their league. For all Wiki editors know, James Braha is the Linda_Goodman of Vedic astrology - which, so far as what Mr. Braha has actually published, is very nearly true. To his credit, Braha has nearly 30 years experience in the field. He was trained by the late R. Santhanam, one of the leading pandits of his day. Santhanam had numerous Sanskrit to English translations to his credit. If I had to pick an American for a reference, I'd pass by Braha and go for Hart de Fouw and Robert Svoboda, but aside from them, Braha is very nearly at the top of living American Vedic astrologers. If he won't do, you've got real problems. And don't tell me about the "in-universe" thing. You're simply inventing excuses. If you want authoritative work, you will need to consult genuine authorities. Not carping scientists. Dave of Maryland ( talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Astrologer appears to largely overlap with what is covered in the article already and seems ideal for a merger. Any opinions? IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I read the PDF but I am still not clear what test criteria they have used for their tests.
I have developed an application that can find whether you are a Man or Woman just by taking your birth time and place, and that is with 70 % accuracy. The accuracy is gained with the 35 people I have used for my test so far.
But if I tried to predict, say, something like, when you gonna die or something, then I am bound to fail there. Astrological theories says that is not possible to predict. Then again if I tried to predict, when you going to get marry or something, I will definitely have a very low accuracy rate there too. You can use such test criteria only if you want to disprove it.
I don't see GOD, so I conclude that god does not exist. Can I come to that conclusion too.. and prove that the Christianity is wrong.
So what I am trying to say here is that, this 'Geoffrey' may have used a set of wrong test criteria to prove astrology is wrong. unless he open his test criteria how we can trust his test and in what basis wiki uses his test results to disprove astrology.
--L.W.C. Nirosh 11:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)c_nirosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by C nirosh ( talk • contribs)
But this guy's argument on astrology is quoted here with great respect. but have you guys quoted his understanding of the milky way galaxy too? He had said that 'Milky Way galaxy is a myriad of tiny stars packed together in the sphere of the fixed stars' Is this accurate? What are those fixed stars that he had noted there?? Can anybody explain please?.
I have taken the part below from the wiki page itself..
Listen... What matter in astrology is not the gravitational force of a distance planet but their reflection of sun light and their positions in respect to earth. I don't think this guy knows at least the basics of astrology. You eat food, and that need for the growth of your body, but do you need the same amount of poisons to kill you too. In astrology Sun and Moon act like the food. You eat food every day, don't you? Other planets and two shadowy planets (Rahu and Ketu) act as medicines or poisons for you. Do you take medicine every day? How many kilos of paracetamol did you take to cure yourself from a regular fever? or cyanide to kill yourself? Now with this understanding think how good this 'Qayyim' argument is..... It seems to me that you guys have teamed-up just to disprove astrology. You find sources that help your course. I think you guys are burying the great goals Wikipedia initially had..
I can talk about Mercury and how influential it is, but does it matter here?
— by L.W.C. Nirosh ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The principles and practice section is fairly bad, with citations and sourcing certainly lacking. We could selectively merge in Western astrology, Hindu astrology and Chinese astrology. Does anyone have any thoughts? IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The entire astrology article is a train wreck of inaccuracies and misrepresentations and I chose to improve this section, not because it was any worse than other sections, but because it is short and reflects on the article as a whole. As I expected, all of my edits have now been reverted, except a bit at the start which the reverting editor liked because of the “flow.”
Cognitive bias is about the power of suggestion and circumstance, in this case the belief that participants are getting personally valid information from a trusted source. The content of this WP section should develop this concept and connect it to astrology. The problem, however, is that the content conflates a “classroom demonstration” with a scientific experiment that has been “replicated” in other “studies”. This is demonstrably inaccurate. There is nothing in the sources that claims or even suggests that these are controlled scientific experiments. There were no scientific comparison. The comparative language used in this section is misleading OR. In Forer’s 1949 demonstration, and repetitions by others, described by Eysenck and Nias, the “results” were selected for “universal validity”. In other words, there was no way to distinguish the validity of one result as any more personal than another. There was nothing to scientifically discriminate. Additionally, there was no way to distinguish these bogus results from the actual results of Forer’s DIB personality test, assuming the DIB was a legitimate personality test. The reversion of this section claims that the students could not distinguish between “common” and “uncommon” results. This is inaccurate and misleading OR. The students were not asked to make that distinction. They were asked to rate how the results described themselves. Since all the results presented to the students were selected for “universal validity”, the expectation should be that each result item receives the highest score of 5. The fact that the average rating was 4.2 shows some skepticism on the part of the students.
It is a stretch to associate these personal validation demonstrations to astrology without actually using astrology, though the suggestion can be made. Neither Forer nor Eysenck claim that the results of these demonstrations were any sort of indictment of astrology. Forer selected his fake results “largely from a newsstand astrology book” taking care to cherry pick for universal validity. This is fine for demonstrating personal validation but of course it is not scientific regarding the astrology. Forer does not cite the author of the book, nor is there a need to. Editors who don’t understand why, and cannot tell the difference between reliable and unreliable astrology sources, and claim there is no difference, should not be editing or commenting on astrology articles. Ken McRitchie ( talk) 18:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Since a classic study by Forer(1949), [1] empirical evidence consistent with the folklore has been garnered in a series of ingenious experiments (e.g., Handelsman & Snyder, 1982; Snyder & Larson, 1972; Snyder, Larsen, & Bloom, 1976; Snyder, Shenkel, & Lowery, 1977). These experiments all assess a phenomenon which, following Meehl (1956), has been termed the "Barnum effect," after the man who purportedly stated that a good circus had a "little something for everybody." They have consistently demonstrated that individuals who erroneously believe that certain high base rate personality profiles were prepared specifically for them usually rate them as extremely accurate descriptions of themselves. [2]
[T]hey fail to consider the possibility that equally accurate descriptions can be produced if their minds are not being read (Fischhoff & Beyth-Marom, 1983; Forer, 1949; [1] Hyman, 1977). People who wish to believe in astrology or the predictive power of psychics will have no problem finding some predictions that have turned out to be true, and this may suffice to strengthen their belief if they fail to consider either predictions that proved not to be accurate or the possibility that people without the ability to see the future could make predictions with equally high (or low) hit rates. A confirmation bias can work here an two ways: (a) people may attend selectively to what is said that turns out to be true, ignoring or discounting what turns out to be false, and (b) they may consider only p(D|H), the probability that what was said would be said if the seer could really see, and fail to consider p(D|~R), the probability that what was said would be said if the seer had no special psychic powers. [3]
There are three main problems in this short section.
1. This section fails to mention the critical issue of “universal validity” that Forer described. “A universally valid personality description is of the type most likely to be accepted by a client as a truth about himself, a truth which he considers unique to him.” (Forer p.2 – page numbers in the reprint). Universal validity is what the Barnum effect is about and is the focus of the Rogers and Soule study cited later in this section.
It fails to mention that the (fake) result descriptions presented to the students were intentionally selected for universal validity. “These statements came largely from a news stand astrology book.” (Forer p.6). “This sketch was designed for more nearly universal validity than Paterson’s appears to have been.” (Forer p.6). Otherwise, there is the inaccurate implication that all astrological statements, even those from reliable sources, are written for universal validity.
This is why I suggested the existing content: “The personality descriptions were taken from a book on Astrology” would be more accurate, and less misleading, if it says: “The personality descriptions were selected largely from a newsstand astrology book and included only traits that Forer described as having ‘universal validity’.”
Agree or disagree?
2. The article Forer presents is not a scientific study and should not be presented in language (“study” “replicated”) that suggests one. “The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility” (Forer – title page). Forer’s demonstration is a trick, a fake, a misdirection to fool the students. There are no scientific controls. It is no more scientific than an ordinary magic trick. This is why I suggest the existing scientific sounding content: “The results of this study have been replicated in numerous other studies” would be more accurate, and less misleading, if it says: “The results of this classroom demonstration have been repeated numerous times.”
Agree or disagree?
3. The existing content: “Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors”, though it is slightly reworded, comes from the review of previous literature (in this case of Forer 1949) in the cited Rogers and Soule 2009 source (p.383), which BTW supersedes the sources cited here by ArtifexMayhem. But Rogers and Soule design their test to overcome the limitations of the previous tests in order to test if this conclusion is actually true. “However, it is possible Barnum profiles are accepted because being so general, they actually do apply to everyone.” (Rogers and Soule p. 384) and they cite three separate sources of this criticism. To overcome this limitation, the authors test for “accuracy for self” and “accuracy for others in general” (Rogers and Soule p. 384). Accuracy for others would mean the statements are recognized as applying to everyone. What they found was “Thus, with a more stringent definition of the Barnum effect, and all other things being equal, it seems respondents were able to recognize the universality of their (fake) astrological profiles.” (Rogers and Soule p. 392 and summarized in the abstract).
I suggest the existing content: “Recipients of these personality assessments consistently fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors” would be more accurate it if says: “A recent scientific study, however, found that recipients of these personality assessments were able to recognize the universality of their fake profiles.”
Agree or disagree? Ken McRitchie ( talk) 09:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a surprising lack of discussion on these suggested changes. Since silence is consent. I've been accused of edit warring so I'll wait before implementing these changes, unless of course someone else is willing. There are other sections I'd like to get to if I have time. Ken McRitchie ( talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
To avoid accusations of edit warring, this is to notify concerned editors that the proposed three changed listed above, or a collaborated version of them, will be incorporated into the article on Jan. 3, 2012. Notification of attention to this section was posted on the Astrology Project talk page on Dec. 24th. This update date gives ample time to editors to offer collaborative clarifications and suggestions. Specifically, this invites Skinwalker and ArtifexMayhem, to provide substantive reasons and reliable references for their objections (e.g. leading questions, and straw men, original research, and intentional misrepresentation of the sources) and to engage in collaborative improvements to the proposed changes if any are required. If you require more time, please ask and state your reasons. Ken McRitchie ( talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
personally individualized", and changed "discussed" to "described". This is mostly stylistic, so I don't mind too much either way. However, "personally individualized" is redundant. "Described" is probably a better word there.
selected largely from a newsstand astrology book and included only traits that Forer described as having "universal validity"". Looking at our source, I don't see much emphasis on the fact that it came from a newsstand, nor any mention at all that he only selected for "universal validity". See page 134 of our source. It seems to me that "newsstand" only serves to potentially discredit the book he used, which we should avoid. Obviously, we should not be saying he selected for universal validity if it's unsourced, and even so, we need to be careful to describe the topic fully and relevantly, not place undue emphasis on a subtopic.
classroom test". I don't see that in the source, which consistently calls it "research". It doesn't seem to me to serve any purpose but to potentially discredit the test. We should avoid that.
personality descriptions basedbefore "fake horoscopes". Not a big deal, but I don't see this as really necessary, and it just adds complexity to the sentence. We're talking about personality descriptions the entire section, so that should be a given when we say "fake horoscopes".
fail to distinguish common and uncommon personality descriptors" to "
tend to accept personality descriptions that apply to nearly everyone". I don't think this is an improvement. The point of the Barnum effect is that participants can't distinguish between custom tailored descriptions of their personality and vague statements that apply universally. Your proposed wording makes it sound obvious, as though their description was "you are human". The new wording doesn't properly describe the effect or the experiment in a way our readers will understand.
sun sign" and removed "star sign" in one section. That looks like an improvement; our source calls it sun sign astrology, so we should too.
You're not an astrologer? Since when? You realize we all have access to google, right? Fudging your background to make yourself appear more credible is in bad faith and bad form. Sædon talk 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There should be no doubt that this is a "classroom demonstration" because that is in the title of Forer's article and I agree that it does tend to discredit the article." It is not our job to discredit sources which don't speak positively of Astrology. Using language chosen specifically to most discredit the sources we find unfavorable would be a gross violation of NPOV, and would do our readers a huge disservice. While the title of the original article may include "classroom demonstration", the lengthy article says "study" and "research" throughout - wording which is also adopted by the secondary sources which discuss his experiment in more depth. I think this is a common thread within your proposed change. While you are undoubtedly operating in good faith, it seems to me that you are attempting to downplay and discredit a part of the article that you feel is bogus. I get why you'd want to do that - bogus stuff shouldn't be represented as legitimate research - but you must understand that we use the sources, and not our own opinions, to determine how a subject is represented. Our sources (research articles, mainstream news articles and programs, secondary sources and so on) discuss this issue positively, as a real effect that really relates to the legitimacy of Astrology. We have to represent that, and not downplay it by selectively picking language to undermine its legitimacy. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
IRWolfie-, thank you for your comments.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken McRitchie ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)"However, when respondents’ gender, age, general education, and psychological awareness were all controlled for (via mixed ANCOVA), this perceived uniqueness disappeared. Thus, with a more stringent definition of the Barnum effect, and all other things being equal, it seems respondents were able to recognize the universality of their (fake) astrological profiles. These conflicting results cast some doubt on the general robustness of the Barnum effect (Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Furnham & Schofield, 1987; Thiriart, 1991; Tyson, 1982) and suggest that Barnum acceptance is affected by at least some demographic factors (cf. Synder et al., 1977). Findings also suggest that Barnum profiles might be accepted as accurate descriptions of the self because they actually do apply to everyone (Bayne, 1980; French et al., 1991/1998; Snyder & Larsen, 1972)."
User:Zymurgy added the word "discredited" before "belief systems" in the lead's definition of astrology. I removed it, because it is unnecessary. The lead already notes that astrology is a pseudo-science, and that it is rejected by the scientific community. Please let's not treat readers as morons who can't work out for themselves that if something is a pseudo-science that is rejected by the scientific community, that means it's discredited. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that there is no link from this article to http://astrology-and-science.com/ Astrology and Science is a site by a former astrologer, now a scientist. The site describes research by many scientists, none of which validates any of the claims of astrologers. I would like to propose linking to the site; I am not associated with the site. Jordan Rothstein ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I made this edit [6], and want to explain my reasoning. I think readers who are scientifically illiterate and would otherwise read the section on the scientific appraisal who believe in astrology would be less likely to read the scientific appraisal section because they might be put off with what they regard as a dismissal. I think pseudoscience is an accurate and purely descriptive term, but they won't, and I want them to read more of the article because I've spent a lot of time on the appraisal section. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit suggestion has been withdrawn, closing under
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
Pseudo-science or proto-science? For the sake of neutrality and coherence, Astrology would be better described as a proto-science as described on this page: [7]. There are no reasons per se, to label astrology as a pseudo-science that is clearly a derogatory term and a misrepresentation of the discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricelavenant ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, please refer to: "The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science.", page 674: "This patronage, however, was motivated more by astrological than other considerations." [1] Mauricelavenant ( talk) 13:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. May I now suggest you familiarise yourself with the term "protoscience", here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Protoscience and here: http://www.definitions.net/definition/protoscience Astronomy clearly evolved from astrology and, as such, it should be referred to as a protoscience which would be more accurate historically. It seems you have a vested interest in deriding astrology and deny it its rightful place in history which is neither neutral nor fair. I have no problems with quoting the scientific community's opinion on the topic. However, science is not the marker by which all things can be defined by a long shot. If in doubt, please, read Paul Feyerabend. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) P.S: It does not seem fair to ask me for an independent source one minute, then use a Wikipedia source yourself, the next. I have noted countless inaccuracies and incoherences in numerous Wikipedia articles and I am not the only one, by far. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 14:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC) May I now suggest you familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] policy, and then withdraw your unsubstantiated and somewhat ridiculous claim that I have "a vested interest in deriding astrology". I suggest you then read the Wikipedia:No original research policy. And then read the article. It states that "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see 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. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified. There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics". All of which is properly cited, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has been discussed many times before, and will need better reasons to change than your unsubstantiated personal objections. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Astrology clearly qualifies as a proto-science as it pre-dates astronomy. In actual fact, astronomy and astrology were one and the same thing if you go far back enough in time. That being the case, calling astrology a pseudo-science is clearly deriding as the term does not convey the notion of a method out of which a more precise discipline later evolved. The term is equally applicable to the field of linguistic that recognises proto-language which does not seem as loaded, for some obscure reasons. I would like to point out respectfully that my objection is not only valid and substantiated but does not constitute a *personal attack* in any way. I am not insulting you personally. I am merely concerned with the accuracy and use of a term that does not seem quite fitting, in this case. As already mentioned, the current scientific perspective is not in question so I see no reason whatsoever to labour the point. I am NOT trying to say that astrology is "scientific" in any way. To call it a proto-science instead of a pseudo-science does not give it more weight but it describes it much better, linguistically. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I am NOT emitting an opinion: I have provided THREE sources that define astrology as a proto-science. The practice of Astrology anywhere on the planet clearly included the consistent observation of the sky, the recording of planets' and constellations' positions, the laborious redaction of ephemeris and so on. The ancient were quite accurate, methodical, disciplined and *scientific* about this aspect of Astrology. The fact that they may have misinterpreted the data is neither here nor there. Nobody calls Democritus or Thales a pseudo-scientist just because they reached erroneous conclusions, do they? You have rejected the Wikipedia source that clearly defines astrology as a proto-science. Rejecting other Wikipedia articles as valid references only serves to undermines the credibility of the whole project. If the Wikipedia proto-science article does not constitute a valid reference to substantiate my claim, what is the value of any Wikipedia article? In view of this, to refute the edition of ONE single word seems motivated by something other than a fair representation of the truth, hence my comments. Unless you claim to a privileged relationship with the truth, I am afraid this does not stand the test of critical scrutiny. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, I quote the relevant passage in the protoscience article for your information: "All sciences would have qualified as protosciences before the Age of Enlightenment, since the scientific method still hadn't been developed, and there was no structured way to prove legitimacy. A standard example is alchemy, which from the 18th century became chemistry, or pre-modern astrology which from the 17th century became astronomy." If you really think this is inaccurate, why don't you have this article modified as well in the interest of coherence? Don't you have a problem with the fact that the protoscience article defines astrology as a protoscience and links to the astrology article that describes it as a pseudoscience? This is clearly incoherent. There are countless Wikipedia articles linking to other Wikipedia articles that contradict each other, particularly in terms of historical dates that often do not match. In response to your latest post, it would be more accurate to present astrology as a proto-science as well as mention the fact that it is now perceived as a pseudo-science by the scientific community. How can you dismiss "The Cambridge History of Science" on the basis that it refers to 17th century India? The latter fact is totally irrelevant since the practice of astrology was not localised. Do you need references for every country? Why not for each single town, as well? This Wikipedia article is inaccurate, a gross misrepresentation, and an insult to our forefathers without whom you wouldn't have a computer to spread the disinformation you seem so attached to. Aside from the misleading terminology, it fails to provide any historical background worthy of the name. It even fails to mention the father of Western astrology and remains conspicuously silent on countless practitioners: from Ptolemy to Tycho Brahe, to Kepler and Newton to name but a few. What a joke! Again, check these facts for yourself in the Wikipedia and elsewhere; the evidence is overwhelming. This should suffice to provide the "necessary material" that you are demanding on the basis of doubtful authority. In view of this, it is not only your integrity that is in question here, but that of the entire Wikipedia project. I am equally fed up with your dogmatic and obtuse approach that runs contrary to the spirit of science and to the furthering of knowledge. If such is the attitude around here, I am also done contributing and donating to Wikipedia. You can now pat yourself on the back for "being right" and for discouraging a contributor on his first attempt. Well done, Sir! Mauricelavenant ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not disputing the current, official scientific perspective on astrology here although, it seems that current researches might well change this in the not too distant future (see links below for references). There are nonetheless several issues at stake here and the question is not at all to legitimise the "junk" aspect of astrology. Firstly, it is quite clear that, prior to the emergence of the scientific method, no particular distinction between astrology and astronomy could be made as these disciplines were merged and undifferentiated, which is what a protoscience is, by definition. Practitioners were engaged in the observation of the sky and recorded scrupulously their observations which clearly qualifies their practice as a protoscience that later gave rise to modern astronomy, once the "junk" was redacted out. The same applies to alchemy that also contained a fair amount of "junk", which, once redacted out, became chemistry. This much is clearly said on the wikipedia protoscience page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience This is further confirmed on the Wikipedia page concerning Alchemy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy which says: "Western alchemy is recognized as a "protoscience" that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine" REGARDLESS OF HOW ALCHEMY IS PERCEIVED TODAY! Thus, in the interest of fairness and coherence, it would seem that the page on alchemy should either be edited to describe alchemy as a "pseudoscience" or the astrology page should describe astrology as a protoscience. To have it both ways is highly suspicious and seems fairly biased and unfair. While some may think that I am quibbling on terminology, I really think words matter, particularly in an encyclopaedia. To describe astrology as a pseudoscience conveys the notion that it contributed nothing of scientific value whatsoever which is patently untrue. It contributed exactly the same considerable and valuable body of knowledge to astronomy as alchemy contributed to modern chemistry and medicine. To come back to the alleged effect "celestial bodies may (or may not) directly have on human lives and even non-living objects", current research is unearthing previously unknown effects that might well explain previously poorly understood phenomenon. Please, read a summary on the following pages, for further insights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 http://prof77.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/dna-replication-at-a-distance-reported-by-nobel-scientist/ http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110428/full/news.2011.252.html http://www.papimi.gr/poponin.htm While I would agree that these findings do not in any way support any "astrological effect", they could nonetheless reveal previously unknown mechanisms that may well explain a range of phenomenon that science has, so far, rejected for lack of an explanation, as pointed out by the scientists who have conducted these researches. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 15:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, you seem to suffer from an acute case of selective reading. Why do you ignore the main point and focus exclusively on the last part of my post that was included only as an example to illustrate a point? The point being that science is capable and willing to review the principles it's based on in the presence of new evidence. Science is not a dogma although the attitude of some scientists and its followers can often err in that direction, unfortunately. How do you think alchemy would fare now if it were scientifically tested for its literal ability to transmute lead into gold? We all know the answer to that: it would overwhelmingly qualify as pseudoscience TODAY. In spite of this, alchemy is still given its due credit for its past achievements in Wikipedia. That much is clear. It seems that there is a fair amount of confusion and misunderstanding here that I am happy to clarify: Science has served as a useful method to differentiate disciplines further and further (eg.: biology further differentiated into molecular biology as well as many other branches). Prior to this, most of our knowledge was merged under the label of umbrella disciplines. While science provides a brilliant tool to assess exoteric reality, I would argue that it is totally incapable of assessing the esoteric dimension, in its current stage of evolution (hence, the inclusion of several links apparently showing some progress in scientifically assessing previously unseen phenomenon). That being the case, the exoteric aspect of alchemy was given recognition under the name of chemistry and the exoteric part of astrology became astronomy while the esoteric aspects became increasingly derided and discarded over time. However, there is little doubt that the esoteric aspect of alchemy and astrology still retain some validity that cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. The esoteric dimension has been thoroughly studied and well understood by scientists such as C.G Jung et al. For example, in "Psychology and alchemy", Jung demonstrated that the esoteric branch of alchemy was primarily concerned with the unification of the psyche, the process of individuation. In this context, turning "base metal into gold" is not to be taken literally, but as a metaphor used to describe a psychic process. Jung took the same approach with astrology in "Synchronicity". Hence, it would be far more accurate to say that the exoteric aspect of alchemy gave rise to chemistry and medicine (to an extent) while its esoteric aspect is one of the roots of modern psychology. Similar conclusions can be reached about astrology. Now, the Wikipedia editing cabal can either decide to give credit to these disciplines in their own right and present such evolution and differentiation in their articles or, it can continue to promote the suppression and the deriding of their esoteric aspects which would be grossly inaccurate and only demonstrate a profound misunderstanding. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid you are quite mistaken about the current practice of alchemy, particularly the Chinese brand of the discipline. Alchemy is alive and well and still practised today, in its esoteric and exoteric forms. There are millions of Qigong practitioners all over the world, practising exercises and meditation techniques designed to promote psychic balance, longevity, health and well-being. There are numerous Qigong masters working today in Traditional Chinese Hospitals obtaining *significant and measurable results* with the patients they treat by projecting their Qi. For your education, please take the time to watch this video of a 118 years old man as a living proof of the power of the correct practice of Chinese alchemy today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRuansCVV3U So much then for your claim that alchemy is not practised today and, as such, has no predictive or explanatory powers. I have yet to see a 118 years old person demonstrating the same abilities after a lifetime of care under the system of scientific medicine. All humans who make it to that advanced age are physical and mental wrecks pushed around in a wheelchair and stuffed with a cocktail of chemicals the actions of which is poorly understood. Acupuncture is also totally rooted in Chinese alchemy. Please, refer to the following documentary for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vRh0r0yRBg If you'd care to watch it, you will see a young woman undergoing 6 hours of open heart surgery under acupuncture anaesthesia and perfectly conscious. Now then, if alchemy had no explanatory or predictive powers, no one would attempt such a procedure since the outcome could not be predicted. The fact is that it has clear and undeniable predictive powers that cannot be explained by western science but CAN be explained by alchemical logic, provided one is willing to study it, assimilate its principles and take it on-board. If you really want to describe the *current paradigm in its entirety*, the current practice of alchemy should and must also be included, unless you think the scientific paradigm is the only valid one, which is patently untrue. In view of this, I now feel entitled to ask for tangible proofs that the editing team working on these topics is actually qualified to do so. Who are you exactly and on what authority do you feel entitled to publish such misinformed perspectives? Concerning the links, it seems to me that, being a Nobel Price of Medicine, Professor Montagnier's current researches are not particularly ill-conceived. The sources you keep demanding have already been provided and systematically rejected. I would agree with your approach to define astrology as a protoscience now perceived as a pseudoscience by the scientific community. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You are repeatedly ignoring my questions and missing my points. It is factually self-evident to anyone with half a working brain cell that astrology is a protoscience and, as such, does not require any further evidence. If you cannot see that, I can only conclude that the policies you mention are only there to serve an agenda at the detriment of the facts - a worrying position. If 5,000 years of empirical observations supporting Chinese Medicine, alchemy and astrology qualify as "Original Research" or "Fringe Theory", then I am out of here. Meanwhile, I hope you carry on enjoying yourselves editing articles on the hypothetical graviton, the 11 dimensions of the M-Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and other such like "fringe theories", that have no basis whatsoever in reality other than in the mind of theoretical physicists in their desperate attempt to finally reach a unified theory of the universe. But hey... that's "real science". Mauricelavenant ( talk) 11:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I am well aware of Popper's approach and counterarguments can easily be provided: Paul Feyerabend stands in stark contrast and argued these topics far better that I can ever do: "Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies." No further comments. Mauricelavenant ( talk) 19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors, It seems that the time has now come for us to bring this sterile debate to a swift conclusion. I would therefore like to offer the following closing remarks: 1. The reference demanded was provided early in the discussion here: http://books.google.co.th/books?id=KDSqLsOHc9UC&pg=PA674&lpg=PA674&dq=astrology+proto+science&source=bl&ots=hz8BoFT13f&sig=klGfW_JbnJU_gLu1s_1FhHYekfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fw2iUZyQA8qErgexnIC4BQ&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=astrology%20proto%20science&f=false "The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science.", page 674 that clearly defines astrology as a protoscience. However, the reference was rejected on the basis that it was localised, which is totally irrelevant. One basic principle of science states that, in order to prove that not all crows are black, it is sufficient to produce a single white crow. 2. I fail to locate any reliable external reference defining alchemy as a protoscience on the corresponding page. Apparently, the current practice of alchemy enjoys a better status than that of contemporary astrology for reasons that remain unexplained. 3. The editors have peddled so many staggering inaccuracies here that I now doubt any of them have a significant theoretical and/ or practical knowledge of the topics in question. In view of this, I can only conclude that their understanding is only informed by second-hand opinions and/ or scientific research that was carefully selected to suit their pre-existing negative bias. If this perception is mistaken, I would appreciate if the editors would kindly provide some reliable evidence to the contrary - I.E: proof that they have acquired first-hand knowledge from a reputable university and can demonstrate a significant working experience of the disciplines debated. A case in point is the utterly mistaken assertion that "Qigong is far, far from being the same as alchemy". Qigong is undoubtedly an alchemical practice involving exercises as well as meditation techniques such as the Fusion of the Five Elements, Small Heavenly Circle, obtaining cosmic Qi through specific acupuncture points and the external projection of Qi via specific acupuncture points such as Pericardium 8 (Laogong) as well as diet and the ingestion of traditional herbal prescriptions known to support these techniques. Further, the presentation of Chinese Medicine seems to date to past centuries when Western Medicine was equally successful at killing patients and thus, have no relevance whatsoever other than revealing the extremely negative bias of the editor. This certainly does not apply today and a well-trained TCM practitioner would never prescribe such substances or promote such techniques. Indeed, the number of iatrogenic deaths that can be attributed to Chinese Herbal Medicine are minimal, at least in Europe. The following link shows that the profession takes this problem very seriously and analyses the number of adverse reactions and deaths that are, in any case, minimal, in an attempt to prevent further problems: http://www.acupuncture.com/herbs/toxicherbs.htm This stands in stark contrast with official statistics on iatrogenic deaths associated with Western medicine: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm On this topic, the editors might care to recall the Contaminated haemophilia blood products. Perhaps equally relevant, the editors might also want to consider which "science" they will choose to believe between that used by Monsanto, the US government, and the FDA to promote the distribution of GMO or that presented by an independent team of French researchers that reached the conclusion that GMO cause cancer in lab rats. So much then for the alleged objectivity and supposed neutrality of data obtained by applying the scientific method. As for the alleged vagueness of astrological predictions mentioned in the article, I would suggest to read my published work that is neither vague nor general in its predictive content. Since these articles have been published and distributed in the printed press way before the forecast trends, there should be no controversy about the possibility of falsification. In particular, I would suggest reading this article, written in 2007 and published in early 2008 in The Mountain Astrologer: http://www.mauricelavenant.com//DOWNLOADS/PlutoinCapricorn20082023.pdf Verification of its publishing date can be obtained by visiting this link: http://mountainastrologer.com/standards/tma_index/Author_2013.pdf I believe providing this evidence largely demonstrates my integrity and my courage in the face of rabid and opinionated armchair critiques of disciplines they poorly understand. 4. My assertions and conclusions are based on a theoretical knowledge of astrology, Chinese medicine and Chinese alchemy backed by 35 years of clinical practice and practical experience. I have not reached my conclusions on the basis of second-hand opinions and/ or questionable research. 5. By quoting Paul Feyerabend, I believe I provided reliable, external evidence that science is ill-equipped to assess astrology. I am not a complete idiot and I AM WELL AWARE THAT THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (all caps intended). Having thoroughly read Karl Popper as well as Paul Feyerabend,I am equally aware of their respective perspectives. There is no need whatsoever to resort to sarcasm and claim that I quoted the "wrong" paragraph. I quoted the paragraph mentioning astrology for obvious reasons of relevance to the ongoing debate. I am grateful that the editors went on to read beyond the quote and I would suggest they should become further acquainted with Feyerabend's valid criticisms of the scientific method. 6. The evidence offered by Paul Feyerabend was NOT provided to divert the debate into a discussion on the philosophy of science. However, it was provided to demonstrate that science can be quite damaging to traditions that have performed a valuable social function for millennia. It was also provided to point out the deficiencies of the scientific method in assessing some traditional disciplines. That being the case, it would seem rather inappropriate for the editors to base their opinions and to reach their conclusions based on such an approach. Astrology should be assessed on its own merits and not by an external authority ill-equipped for the task. 7. In view of the above, I can only conclude that Wikipedia's editing cabal is bent on serving a predefined agenda at the expense of the facts. The agenda clearly promotes exoteric reality and seeks to suppress systematically the esoteric dimension of the human experience which equates to nothing less than the murder of the soul. That does not necessarily mean that the editors are acting consciously. I believe they are acting in good faith according to the way they have been programmed and educated which is also part of the wider agenda. Regardless of this consideration, the result is the same. While I would agree that differentiation is useful (differentiating the exoteric branch of astrology into astronomy or the chemistry aspect of alchemy, in this instance), there is little doubt that dissociation can only lead to disaster. Respectfully yours, Mauricelavenant ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Well, that was pointless. François Robere ( talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph is a synthesis of sources, with no source explicitly making the point "Many poets and playwrights have used astrological symbolism to add subtlety and nuance to their literary themes" These sources are unreliable:
IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add some secondary-sourced text to the 'Mediaeval' section something along these lines, as at the moment it says nothing about usage in mediaeval literature. The first paragraph summarizes Lewis's view. The second paragraph is a direct quotation, which would be one way to show a scholarly reaction to astrology in mediaeval literature. The image would neatly illustrate the section:
Would this do as it is, or how could it be improved? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is a revised version (still awaiting Chauncey) - comments invited. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
In Paradiso, the final part of the Divine Comedy, the Italian poet Dante Alighieri referred "in countless details" [3] to the astrological planets, though he adapted traditional astrology to suit his Christian viewpoint. [3] Dante uses astrological thinking in his prophecies of the reform of Christendom in his Divine Comedy. [4]
The fourteenth century English poets John Gower and Geoffrey Chaucer both referred to astrology in their works, including Gower's Confessio Amantis and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. [5] In the fifteenth century, references to astrology, such as with similes, became "a matter of course" in English literature. [5] Astrology is especially important in Chaucer's The Franklin's Tale, though the reader may be intended to doubt the "astrological 'magic'" of the tricky "subtil clerk". [6] The narrator of The Franklin's Tale states directly "I ne kan no termes of astrologye", [7] ("I'm not familiar with any astrological terms"). [8]
Dante's interest in astrology has only slowly been gaining the attention it deserves. In 1940 Rudolf Palgen published his pioneering eighty-page Dantes Sternglaube: Beiträge zur Erklärung des Paradiso, which concisely surveyed Dante's treatment of the planets and of the sphere of fixed stars; he demonstrated that it is governed by the astrological concept of the "children of the planets" (in each sphere the pilgrim meets souls whose lives reflected the dominant influence of that planet) and that in countless details the imagery of the Paradiso is derived from the astrological tradition. ... Like Palgen, he [Kay] argues (again, in more detail) that Dante adapted traditional astrological views to his own Christian ones; he finds this process intensified in the upper heavens.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
It can hardly be doubted, I think, that Dante was thinking in astrological terms when he made his prophecies. [The attached footnote cites Inferno. I, lOOff.; Purgatorio. xx, 13-15 and xxxiii, 41; Paradiso. xxii, 13-15 and xxvii, 142-148.]
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
The literary interest in astrology, which had been on the increase in England throughout the fourteenth century, culminated in the works of Gower and Chaucer. Although references to astrology were already frequent in the romances of the fourteenth century, these still retained the signs of being foreign importations. It was only in the fifteenth century that astrological similes and embellishments became a matter of course in the literature of England.
Such innovations, one must confess, were due far more to Chaucer than to Gower. Although Gower, too, saw artistic possibilities in the new astrological learning, and made prompt use of these in his retelling of the Alexander legend, he confined himself, for the most part, to a bald rehearsal of facts and theories. It is accordingly, as a part of the long encyclopaedia of natural science which he inserted into his Confessio Amantis, and in certain didactic passages of the Vox Clamantis and the Mirour de l'Omme, that Astrology figures most largely in his works... Gower's sources on the subject of astrology... were Albumasar's Introductorium in Astronomiam, the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum Secretorum, Brunetto Latini's Trésor, and the Speculum Astronomiae ascribed to Albert the Great.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)