Talk:Astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAstrology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 2, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Please read before starting

Welcome to Wikipedia's Astrology article. This represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are 'No Original Research' (WP:NOR) and 'Cite Your Sources' (WP:CITE).

Since the nature of this topic has been deemed controversial, all contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON). When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Also remember this "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article; it is not to be used as a soapbox, or for comments that are not directly relevant to the content of article.

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Four groups

Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Pseudoscience: Anachronistic / Non-Neutral Terminology[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add link to "See also"[edit]

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

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

Categorization... Not Pseudoscience?[edit]

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

Please review WP:SUPERCAT, especially the part stating, "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." If adding Category:Pseudoscience to the article were correct, it would have been done long ago - as I attempted to explain to you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: What are your thoughts on this? RobP (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Astrology is not pseudoscience, in my view, it's just bollocks. With something like homeopathy or acupuncture there's a cottage industry of practitioners producing sciencey-looking studies that support abject nonsense. I think the only studies of astrology are the ones quantifying the proportion of predictions that are correct, which usually find that astrology is somewhat less accurate than just guessing. Guy (help!) 14:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Guy:Oh man. Can of worms opened. You do realize, right, that the very first line of this article is "Astrology is a pseudoscience..."? And, there are 17 other uses of the word in this article. Until now, we were only arguing the point of the level of category, because it is already a sub-cat of pseudoscience. Are you proposing a major change in the article? RobP (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion, but there is an existing consensus that the "Pseudoscience" category should be used even when categories lower in the hierarchy are present. In particular the SUPERCAT (aka SUBCAT) argument was discussed and ultimately rejected. Sunrise (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus at a given article is determined by discussion at the article's talk page. There is no consensus here to add the category. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You need to have a good reason to override a broader consensus, not a good reason to comply with it. Like I said, the SUPERCAT argument has been rejected in the general case, as determined by a formal closure. What is different about this article that makes you think it should be treated differently? Sunrise (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus at an article is determined on that article's talk page. A discussion that occurred a long time ago, somewhere else, does not mean that there is a consensus here to add the category. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question, and I think it's quite a stretch to call February 2018 "a long time ago" in this context. That said, I've posted at FTN to request additional input. Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Astrology is obviously a pseudoscience and should be categorized as such. Sgerbic (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is not about whether astrology is a pseudoscience. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

For Q3, yes. (As per my comment above) there is an existing consensus that the "Pseudoscience" category should be used even when categories lower in the hierarchy are present. The issue of SUBCAT was considered as part of that discussion, and given the result it was judged not to change the outcome. If there are any particular examples of a page not being in both categories, I would consider it to just be an oversight. I suppose the claim is that the consensus only applies to Acupuncture and the other articles that the person who triggered the discussion had specifically edited, but I don't see any justification for such an arbitrary distinction. Sunrise (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think those who oppose acupuncture being in the acupuncture cat and the pseudoscience cat are missing some really important aspects of categorization. When we see that Teller (magician) is in Category:American schoolteachers, that tells us something about Teller. When we see that Geena Davis is in Category:American female archers, that tells us something about Davis. We would not also categorize Davis as an archer, because it is obvious to all that if you are an American female archer you are an archer.
When we see that Acupuncture is in Category:Pseudoscience, that tells us something about acupuncture. When we see that Acupuncture is in Category:Acupuncture we learn nothing new about acupuncture We keep it in the acupuncture cat for completeness, but we should not use it being in its own cat as an excuse to miss a categorization that actually tells us something about acupuncture. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The placement of Astrology within Category:Pseudoscience would add no useful information, since the lead already states that astrology is a pseudoscience. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You can make that argument against pretty much any cat. The placement of Donald Trump within Category:Presidents of the United States adds no useful information, since the lead already states that Trump is the current president of the United States. The placement of iPhone within Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones and Category:Smartphones adds no useful information, since the lead already states that The iPhone is a smartphone made by Apple. The Categories are supposed to match up with the article content. We remove cats when it doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, the point of categories is to group together related articles, rather than to provide information about an article's topic. They are a navigation device. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

I agree with jps about this. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't have any basis in the relevant guidelines. Really, instead of making the case for a special exception to WP:SUPERCAT, you should be arguing for the categorization guidelines themselves to be revised, if you see your position as having any merit. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Nah, we've got WP:IAR on our side. jps (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, your position has no basis in the relevant guidelines. WP:IAR is not a guideline. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
True. It's merely a core pillar of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It's already been demonstrated that plenty of other pages are following the consensus established elsewhere that archetypal pseudoscientific topic should labelled as such. The argument Consensus at an article is determined on that article's talk page rather renders ramshackle requests to respect policy, and moot given the support here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's become pretty clear, even if we only considered the comments on this page alone, that we have a consensus to use the category for this article. If FKC continues to object, I suppose we could request a formal closure? Sunrise (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If the assumption behind that comment is that I would continue to remove the category despite a clear consensus in its favor, that assumption is incorrect. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Pseudoscience for certain, and bollocks, per above. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've made the change. I didn't want to make the assumption that you would necessarily agree with me! Sunrise (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Add the pseudoscience category to this page and WP:SNOW close. Also add the pseudoscience category to any related pages that don't have it already and, if anyone reverts or objects, post an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization to settle the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Discussion here doesn't determine consensus at other pages. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Thus the statement "if anyone reverts or objects, post an RfC" which is a shorter way of saying "Discussion here doesn't determine consensus at other pages, but my personal opinion is that the pseudoscience category should be added to any related pages that don't have it already. If a single editor doesn't like the addition, rather than having Yet Another Discussion On That Page, in my opinion there should be a central RfC to determine the consensus of the English Wikipedia community for this and all all similar pages. Again in my opinion, Wikipedia talk:Categorization would be a good place to post such an RfC, but I am open to suggestions if anyone knows of another good place to post it." That's a lot of words to say something that I think everyone here including you understood when I used fewer words...   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯   --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition to astrology article[edit]

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

Most likely not. Aside from other potential problems, it doesn't look like that book has any kind of notability. --McSly (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This book looks extremely shaky; the very fact that the anonymous author chose to use the pseudonym "Abramelin", a name associated with the occult, as in the ceremonial magic oil used by Aleister Crowley, suggests that it is not a reliable source. With no known author or any provenance that would indicate the author's expertise, it couldn't be used as a reference, or even get a mention as more fringe hokum—that is, pseudoscience. Carlstak (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Astrologaster" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astrology&oldid=939832795"