Comments about "Astrology" in Wikipedia

This document contains comments about the subject "Astrology" in Wikipedia

• The text in italics is copied from the article
  
• Immediate followed by some comments
  

In the last paragraph Reflection I explain my own opinion.

"Astrology"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this article we read:

Astrology can be defined as the study of the positions of celestial bodies in the belief that their movements either directly influence life on Earth or correspond somehow to events experienced on a human scale.

Astrology has nothing to do with the study of the positions of celestial bodies.
What should be writen is the following

Astrology can be defined as the belief that positions of celestial bodies directly influence human behavior and or human events.

In fact there exists no proof that such an relation actual exists.

Next we read:

Modern astrologers define astrology as a symbolic language, an art form, and a form of divination.

At the beginning of this text should be added the word: Some

Next we read:

Despite differences of definitions, a common assumption of astrology is the use of celestial placements in order to explain past and present events and predict the future.

This should be replaced with:

A common definition of astrology is the use of celestial positions in order to explain past and present events and predict the future.

Next we read:

Generally, the scientific community considers astrology a pseudoscience or superstition.

This should be replaced with:

Generally speaking the scientific community considers astrology as not scientific i.e. not true. In laymans terms as nonsense.

Next we read:

Despite its rejection by scientists, 31% of Americans polled expressed a belief in astrology and 39% considered it scientific according to another study.

No comments.

Claims about obstacles to research

Here we read:

Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding, lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers, and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics.

This may all be true.
The problem is that given any amount of money they will never be able to demonstrate that the positions of the celestial bodies in any way influence human behaviour.

Reflection

Astrology does not belong to scientific endavour.
Science has to do that different persons using the same obeservations make the same testable predictions.
This is not true for astrology.
If you ask different astrologers that you are born at 4 March 1942 at 12.00 Standard Greenwhich time they will come up with different predictions what your present condition will be.

Back to my home page Contents of This Document