Talk:Astrology - Knowledge (XXG)

1548:

astrology. I actually think there is value to that position and that it belongs in the article, but it currently is overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence. It gets a little complicated, however, whether or not we are talking about Western astrology. And the definition of pseudoscience is also tricky. And then there is the issue of distinguishing astronomy from astrology. But certainly as soon as you can say, "there was astrology and there was astronomy", you are firmly in the pseudoscientific zone. Saying this happened in the 17th century is quite modest, given that it actually happened as far back as the 1st Century when people like Cicero were plainly stating that astrology was in opposition to reason. Cicero wasn't saying "ignore the heavens" He was saying "astrology is bunk". And lastly, I haven't re-read the most recent RFC's, but I can tell you right now that they were not as broad as to say "is the lead perfect and should no changes be made to the body?" New RS requires a new discussion. So if that's what you consider "incredibly sneaky" lock me up.

2002:"The Society of Astrologers came into being at a time when mathematical practitioners thrived in London. Those with expertise in timekeeping, navigation, surveying, hydrog- raphy and other fields grew in popularity and sophistication from the mid-seventeenth century and were increasingly organized in professional and commercial institutions.14 This was a culture that privileged arts that were practical. Called upon to provide guid- ance on relationships, travel, agriculture and health, astrologers enjoyed extraordinary popularity in England especially during the Civil War (1642–51) and Interregnum (1649–60), when practitioners promised to address various personal and political needs.15 1691:"professor of the History of Hermetic Philosophy"!!!! Maybe you have better sources you could put in? Yes your Paul Thagard quotation is good, but he's obviously making a provocative polemic. And he doesn't support the 18th century. Thagard's position may be getting more of a foothold, but it's hardly a done deal. It's not a settled consensus, and so for us, as editors, decide Thagard's take in the correct one is not NPOV. We need to make it clear that throughout its history Astrology has had its critics. And as I've said giving the contextualizers a voice is also good. But right now the scale is tipped the wrong way. Per WP:FRINGE. 1625:

times, even though it is pseudoscientific today. Astrology was not simply a perverse sideline of Ptolemy and Kepler, but part of their scientific activity, even if a physicist involved with astrology today should be looked at askance. Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category. Rationality is not a property of ideas eternally: ideas, like actions, can be rational at time but irrational at others. Hence relativizing the science/pseudoscience distinction to historical periods is a desirable result.

648: 859: 2556:

description, astrology is "Divination based on the movements of the stars". There has been opposition to that throughout most of recorded history. Starting at least with Cicero. And then when the lead seems to use Shakespeare as support for Astrology's acceptance, it ignores that there are critical references to Astrology even there. But I digress. Let's see if we can't come up with something that is appropriately balanced! Here is what I have proposed:

1475:

focus and arguments were primarily religious, but the fact that the Royal Society continued on without them and the Society of Astrologers went defunct IMO demonstrates that already in the 17th century scientists were not taking it seriously. Yes, there was an RfC, but now we have new RS, and more to come -- Massimo Pigliucci an expert on pseudoscience, feels that the term "pseudoscience" makes sense even back when Cicero was criticizing Astrology.

960: 390: 880: 702: 1271: 1187: 1166: 681: 449: 791: 770: 1066: 1076: 1045: 1434: 639: 3850: 3709: 360: 1324: 585: 1197: 3361:, which is based on an argument derived from medieval astronomy (indeed it has nothing to do with theology or religion and should be moved to another section). Given the fact that what precisely constitutes 'science' in the medieval context is a bit of a thorny subject, such objections are probably best summarized as "doctrinal reasons". 2555:

The current second paragraph of the lead is oddly assertive about there being a single thing called astrology distinct from astronomy that was "throughout its history" a respectable pursuit. That is POV pushing and it is not supported by the actual body of this article. According to the current short

2246:

Can you please provide a link to whichever of the many many non-indexed and often-paywalled posts in "Pigliucci's substack blog" that you all are referring to or quoting? I checked the history and no such thing has been posted; you both seem to know exactly what is being discussed, but there's no way

3114:

particular criterion. Critics were not 'yay, scientific' and proponents were not 'boo, pseudoscience'. It is only when that misconception has been cleared out of the way that one can even start understanding what the historical debates about astrology were actually about. In that sense, "detractors,

1994:

As to Pfeffer, the source that I added to the page, you are right she doesn't use the term pseudoscience, but I disagree with your logical shell game of saying "the criticism was religious". The Society of Astrologers was grasping at legitimacy and failing in the 17th century. The straw they reached

1969:

We are not allowed to decide which of them is correct nor give undue balance to one of their opinions. Especially since Thagard seems to have a spicy new take on it. He might be right to scold the stuffy old historians and their presentism, however, we don't just jump on any bandwagon that rolls by.

3061:

This seems accurate and useful to me. Of course the article itself is dropping the ball spectacularly in its undue focus on these criticisms and in its utter failure to put them into context (which would also require explaining in the first place how and why astrology fitted in ancient and medieval

2530:

I'm late but here's my two cents: it's misleading to talk about "science" in the age of Cicero. While the ancients were doing what we'd call "proto-science", and while many Medieval thinkers were engaged in "natural philosophy" (what we call "science"), modern science as we understand it (a process

2004:

Yet the formation of the Society of Astrologers was prompted by the knowledge that the art was being seriously challenged in learned circles.16 It was also harder to access astrological teaching at the universities. The Savilian statutes of 1619, for example, had ‘utterly debarred’ the professor of

1709:

who is as well if not better credentialed than Thagard, from his substack: "“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.” That is completely correct, and as we have seen it is a principle that goes back at

1474:

The question is 17th v 18th Century. The Society of Astrologers, (a page I'll be creating soon and would love some help with), was formed in the 17th century in contrast to the Royal Society. Their purpose was to restore Astrology's legitimacy. According to at least one historian they failed. Their

3781:

Just stopping by to congratulate the editors here on what is truly among the best articles on Wiki (for the subject it covers). I particularly enjoyed the section on scientific analysis/criticism: it presents different philosophical views on what does and doesn't meet the standards of science, but

3271:

Oh, good point about "skeptics" let's go back to that. I also think that "epistemic" isn't a perfect fit, because it's a little modern, fancy and perhaps overly broad. "Doctrinal" is accurate, but it doesn't cover what I'm hoping to capture with "epistemic." Should "doctrinal" replace "religious"?

1690:

You think there is a consensus amongst historians of science? Do you have sources for that? The two sources in the lead supporting the 18th century as the point of demarcation are not historians of science. One source is from a Catholic Encyclopedia and the other is a defense of "esotericism" by a

3391:

was politically motivated? I'm sure that there were many such detractors (who would of course have used other arguments but whose fundamental motivation was political in nature), and I'm not saying that the word should be taken out, rather that something seems to be missing in the article itself?

1547:

On the contrary, I want people to notice. I think we need to discuss this deeply held desire by some editors to, despite a high percentage of the RS that are currently in the article and more to come from me, promote a single POV from a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize

3635:

Didn't we agree above to just keep "skeptics" rather than switch to "doubters"? Apart from that, "astrology" should be lowercase, and the "has had its detractors" of the original proposal reads better to me. But these are quibbles really; I think you can just add it to the article at this point.

3539:

But really, the two most frequent and notable historical objections to astrology are 1. the ethical objection that astrology denies free will and moral responsibility and 2. the religious objection that astrology attributes divine power to planetary and other celestial demons. We should actually

3531:

Maybe just leave "doctrinal" out then? It's not among the most frequent types of criticisms anyway. But "scientific" really is unclear in this context and is guaranteed to make readers think of modern science, which just really doesn't cover the ground we are trying to cover here, like the twins

1624:

In the time of Ptolemy or even Kepler, astrology had few alternatives in the explanation of human personality and behavior. Existing alternatives were scarcely more sophisticated or corroborated than astrology. Hence astrology should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance

2560:

Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for epistemic, political and religious reasons. Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close

2534:

As to when astrology was widely recognized as "pseudoscience" -it's hard to tell. While Galileo was definitely doing empirical science (again, as we understand it), he was also involved in astrology. Even Newton was publishing on astrology in the 17th Century and it does not seem like this was

2077:

Feel free to check the sources. But if you do not have any sources that explicitly support a date in the 17th century for the recognition of astrology as a pseudoscience (which is borderline impossible, since the word didn't even exist in the 17th century) then refrain from editing the page to

3131:

environment of the late medieval universities, astrology was actually not at all common, but of course the great majority of pre-17th-century scholars worked outside of that particular environment, in various courts, mosques, and monasteries, more often than not completely isolated from other

3278:

This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeits of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars; as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical

3065:

I don't see the use of 'nonetheless' here as anything other than contrasting the following statement with the preceding one. In my mind it doesn't at all imply that critics were somehow a majority. Ancient and especially medieval scholars were deeply divided on this topic, but there was no

2051:

I've already mentioned that Pigliucci's self-published blog (in which he places words in Cicero's mouth) is not an improvement or "on equal footing" with Thagard's paper, which is an academic publication. The former is only relevant for Pigliucci's own views. In any case, there are not

2160:

be a reliable source for actually stating that astrology actually was a pseudoscience in antiquity, especially when a better-quality source (Thagard) says the opposite. A self-published Substack blog (scare quotes notwithstanding) where Pigliucci puts words in Cicero's mouth is

3109:

of the proponents or critics were either attracted or repulsed by astrology for the reasons that people are attracted or repulsed by it today, i.e. because it wisely rejects/fails to adhere to 'the' scientific view. There was no such thing, and so there was no divide based on

1573:. As with all schools of ancient skepticism, they denied knowledge was possible altogether. Cicero wasn't arguing for astronomy against astrology. He was opposed to the idea that natural sciences -- including astrology in the first-century -- could lead to knowledge at all. 2977:

I'm not seeing "nonetheless" listed as a weasel word. Do you see it there? Any word can end up being a weasel word, so I don't want to get too literal, but what I have provided is what I consider an accurate summary of what is on the page. I understand you think that there

2228:, anyway. He's not really a notable source for elucidating what Cicero thought about astrology, especially apparent since he puts the word pseudoscience in his mouth despite the fact that such a concept would be completely foreign to a first-century BCE academic skeptic. 3275:

Many of the detractors were detractors along the lines of "this is bad reasoning". Cicero certainly was one such critic and skipping way ahead to the Shakespeare quotes that are being marshaled on the page to defend Astrology, but in fact, in King Lear, Edmund says:

1525:

The source only mentions a book dedicated to astronomy that eschews astrology. It is certainly not a "clear rejection" of astrology, at least as far as the source describes it. Even if it did reject astrology outright, that doesn't mean the academy at large rejected

2283:

The post is paywalled, but you say it's consistent with his published work. The topic in question seems to be Pigliucci talking about Cicero criticizing astrology. Any references to that, that normal people can access from say a university or public library?

2127:; it's just an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books – because at least one professional editor acted as a filter, and because other reliable sources cite material from this publisher on a regular basis." 3513:'s explanation, I can understand what is meant, but I would have no idea on its own. I would not naturally think to call the received teachings of Aristotle "doctrine". I think "empirical" works, but it doesn't cover the moral reasoning on display in 2220:. It should not imply that such a view is comparable to the scholarly consensus -- which is that astrology was only recognized as a pseudoscience in the 18th century -- which is clearly what you're trying to do. As far as I know, Pigliucci is only a 3082:. Every proponent, every critic had their very own reasons to support or attack (certain aspects of) astrology, and I think "epistemic, political and religious reasons" summarizes that nicely (even though 'doctrinal' may be better than 'epistemic': 3279:

predominance. Drunkards, liars, and adulters by an enforc’d obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of a whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star.

1938:

the kind of expert one should reference -- if anyone knows the relationship between early modern science and astrology, it's Hanegraaff. Plus, the consensus among editors is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is reliable for many topics in religious

3372:'s stance (also wrongly categorized as theological in the article) that although astrological influences themselves (both positive and negative) are real, they cannot in any way be known by mankind, and so astrologers must be frauds (see 992:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 3352:

as understood by Averroes, and so his objection boils down to astrology being at variance with Aristotelian doctrine. Criticisms based on perceived incompatibility with other sciences as understood at the time were common, such as e.g.

2380:

The long and frankly exhausting arguments by a couple of people who nominally declare enthusiasm on the question of "who decided this when?" are not convincing, and don't meet the bar to break this policy. It would make the article

2104:, his "blog" is the professional opinion of a SECONDARY expert. And what he is saying there is completely in keeping with his published work and his relevant expertise. But don't worry, I have more sources coming. In the meantime... 3877:

In 2nd paragraph of Ancient World section, 7th line, please change "first dynasty of Mesopotamia" to "first dynasty of Babylon". (See pertinent Knowledge (XXG) chronology entries, e.g. in Chronology of the Ancient Near East.)

3786:

mean taking a neutral position on every subject (as some editors on here seem to think); it's about accurately reflecting all major viewpoints as they are expressed in relevant, reliable, mainstream sources. Again, well done.

1995:

for was religion, because they the Natural Philosophy straw wasn't even an option for them. Regardless of what straw they were reaching for, they were obviously drowning in the 17th, not the 18th century. Here's what she says:

3284:

This isn't a doctrinal objection, it's more of a "it's silly to blame the stars for the "surfeits of our own behavior". And I have many other sources with similar objections that fill the gap between Cicero and Elizabethan

2535:

anything unusual for a scientist of that age. I want to say the 18th Century was a turning point, and if that's what reliable sources say, it's probably accurate. The arguments about Cicero, while interesting, seem fringe.

2298:

I don't know nor particularly care if it's consistent with his published work. I don't think it's an appropriate source and even if he did say that Ciceroc had a conception of pseudoscience in antiquity, I wouldn't buy it.

2197:

Yay, we agree! We can indeed follow policy and say, per ABOUTSELF that Pigliucci an expert in pseudoscience, philosophy and science, a native speaker of Italian and a scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers in particular,

1371:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Knowledge (XXG) aspires to be such a respected

3957: 2982:

is a consensus now amongst historians, but I do not see that consensus reflected in the sources on this page. I see that there have been critics throughout, especially if you are defining astrology as "divination".

2384:

To those who have been advocating for weakening the clear description as PS, maybe your thesis on "it wasn't PS until 18xx" can go briefly somewhere in the history section if you must, but keep it out of the lead.

4057: 166: 3122:

For now I believe the proposed paragraph is fine, even though I have some remarks. Most importantly, "and was common in academic circles" is an unfortunate expression because (as I explained) there were no

1358:, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to 2415:

view of the topic -- i.e., one that is general and not dedicated to debunking modern horoscopic astrology (which represents an incredibly tiny fraction of the scholarly literature related to the topic.)

2374:

I agree with the arbcom decision that gives astrology as an example of pseudoscience, and wp's rules and guidelines that require us to clearly describe it as such early in the lead, without waffling or

3947: 3387:

refers? Of course one of the most important uses of astrology historically was political, but the article does not mention much about that right now, and it's not immediately clear to me who among the

3346:

is at variance with what has been demonstrated in natural science, namely, that the actions of the planets are all good, and that the existing things here all draw their existence from their motion.

1607:

subsection is preceded by three subsections (over 1,500 words) regarding the scientific validity of astrology as practiced today. The lede introduces pseudoscience in the tenth word. And even then,

3962: 3115:

competitors and skeptics" may be a little vague, or even misleading. The subject of astrology's various critics really deserves to take up more space in the lead, but it should also (in time)

3336:

As for "doctrinal", it does not entirely replace "religious". Religious reasons would indeed often be doctrinal in nature, but not all doctrinal reasons are religious in nature. For example,

652: 537: 1963:

As I said, the sources listed in the lead do not seem to support the text written there (18th century). Can you find support from your better sources? You've provided a nice list, however...

2114:"Most of our assessments of publisher reliability are based on pre-Internet reputation, and reputable publishers often print material by people who turn out to be quacks or frauds, anyway. 2531:

involving empiricism, heavy reliance on mathematics, and results that can be tested and replicated) did not really emerge until the 16th Century at the earliest. So, the age of Galileo.

3026:

How would you word so as to not give the false impression that there were no critics of Astrology until the 1800's? Because that's the problem I have with the text that is there now.

3917: 4052: 3209:

who opposed it for political, religious, and epistemic reasons. Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in

3202:

Thank you for your response Apagausma. I don't mean to steamroll Tryin-to-make-a-change, but for the matter of furthering the discussion, does the following text cover your points?

2326: 2108: 460: 1650:

with the Royal Society. It is also doubtful you read the source you linked -- Pfeffer doesn't mention "pseudoscience" anywhere in her paper. In fact, the word pseudoscience was

1249: 1027: 3247:

he was favoring at the time). I didn't mean to object specifically to "skeptics" in my previous comment, but I did suggest "doctrinal" instead of "epistemic". What about that?

1966:

Thagard, who is pushing the historical relativistic point the hardest is a philosopher, but I'll accept him as relevant, and place against him Pigliucci who disagrees with him.

3062:

worldviews), but the mere fact that there have been detractors with various backgrounds and motivations throughout its history is an important and notable aspect of astrology.

600: 4017: 2640: 1017: 1415: 1402: 1389: 1376: 1366: 1350: 1342: 1290: 2481:

It would be wise to compare Pigliucci's and Fernandez-Beanato's work with what some of the most respected ancient philosophy experts have written about this topic, such as

2056:. There is only one question: do relevant, reliable sources support a 17th century date for the ascendance of astrology as a pseudoscience? The answer is a resounding "no." 3927: 1960:

Okay, so we have two questions on the table. 1) was Astrology a pseudoscience before the 18th century? 2) was astrology criticized throughout its history prior to that?

4022: 981: 160: 993: 3243:

Yes, "learned" is perfect. "Doubters" instead of "skeptics" isn't really better though (remember that Cicero's arguments against divination were derived from the

2720: 1597:

overwhelming the scientific and philosophy-of-science consensus that Astrology has pretty much been in opposition to Natural Philosophy for its entire existence.

1529:

It took months of arguing to change the lead and its incredibly sneaky to wait until all that dies down for months to start editing it like no one would notice.

942: 1979:

As we've discussed Hanegraaf is something other than a historian of science. Yes you are correct he has credentials, but not in the field of history of science.

752: 92: 4012: 1398:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 3942: 1148: 1102: 4002: 932: 3540:

explain this in as many words in the lead, but as long as we have just a list of types of objections, "ethical" or "moral" should definitely be in there.

3119:

what each type of criticism involved, what really was at stake. Obviously though the corresponding sections in the article body should be rewritten first.

518: 4047: 3972: 3381:

Throughout its history, astrology has had its detractors, competitors and skeptics who opposed it for political, moral, religious, and doctrinal reasons.

3376:). I doubt however that this type of objection was widespread enough to mention in the short section that we currently have about this topic in the lead. 1603:, whatever that means. There is a single -- small -- section dedicated to contextualizing astrology within a broader view of the history of science. The 1239: 742: 4062: 3746:

This website offers detailed articles on various astrological concepts and practices, providing valuable resources for readers interested in astrology.

1419:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. 988: 965: 841: 4032: 1138: 4007: 3952: 2888: 1615:. There is simply the consensus among historians of science that astrology, as practiced before the 18th century, was not pseudoscience, let alone 908: 98: 3987: 3977: 3341: 831: 2962:

considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine

1110: 718: 3333:

to blame heavenly compulsion for what are in fact one's own faults, and if we could justifiably do so, morality itself would become meaningless.

2800: 4037: 478: 3997: 3932: 3017:: your sources indicate that some people criticized astrology, but using it to imply that there was some sort of consensus -- there was not. 2837: 1832: 1807: 1789: 1338: 4042: 3992: 3967: 3473: 3045: 3018: 2965: 2307: 2273: 2236: 2187: 2179:. In this case, the academic sources given absolutely are more reliable than a single, off-hand parenthetical self-published by Pigliucci. 2086: 1950: 1736: 1680: 1581: 1537: 43: 2577:

There are no weasle words. Nor is there any Synth. This is merely a SUMMARY of most of the criticism that occurs IN THIS ARTICLE. Cheers.

1411:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 807: 619:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see 4027: 3922: 1106: 887: 864: 2386: 1504: 1451: 1355: 1210: 1171: 709: 686: 466: 351: 112: 3982: 2478:. Damian Fernandez-Beanato is much better already, but still not by any means a specialist in Cicero, or even in ancient philosophy. 2435: 1710:

least to Hume and Laplace, though Cicero argues in a similar way in De Divinatione, where he criticizes the Stoics for believing in

1562:

It is completely ahistorical to claim that astrology has been opposed to natural philosophy for its entire existence. Even Thaggard

57: 1114: 1090: 1050: 117: 33: 3937: 2407:-- especially since with an article like this, the development of astronomy out of astrology and the process by which astrology 87: 3650: 3576:. But that is an empirical question we probably can't settle here, so I'm fine with avoiding that word. Unsure on "political". 3554: 3444: 3406: 3261: 3192: 2519: 2300: 2266: 2229: 2180: 2079: 1943: 1729: 1673: 1574: 1530: 1309: 1278: 798: 775: 661: 3601:

reasons. Nonetheless, prior to the Enlightenment, astrology was generally considered a scholarly tradition and was common in

2912:

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

2855:"The Society of Astrologers (c.1647–1684): sermons, feasts and the resuscitation of astrology in seventeenth-century London" 2434:

Its still wrong in my opinion because astrology never claimed to be a modern science nor do any other divinatory practices.

2418:

Luckily there is consensus about the lede and there has been for more than a year (after another six months of discussion.)

1642:

initially overlapped with the Society of Astrologers in a significant degree, so while the latter failed, the former wasn't

78: 2074:

Lastly the only thing that matters with the Pfeffer source is that isn't relevant, it doesn't mention pseudoscience at all.

1490:

Here on page 220 apparently we get 1679 as the date of a "clear rejection of astrology in works of astronomy" (quote from

3532:

argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physics. The twins argument is classical and often repeated, and "

1930:

and isn't a defense of esotericism at all. Plus, you seem to imply he's a quack of some sort, and not a professor at the

1305: 907:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3454:

Oh great "empirical" fits the bill for me. "...who opposed it for moral, religious, doctrinal and empirical reasons..."

3344:

p. 267 is explicitly based on the claim that astrology, with its concept of positive and negative planetary influences,

203: 181: 1942:

There is already discussion about ancient and pre-18th century criticism of astrology on the page. Not an improvement.

596: 431: 2960:). This gives undue weight to the "detractors, competitors, and skeptics" who were the minority, whereas the majority 427: 148: 3536:" seems like a description for that which is both apt and (especially if wiki-linked) comprehensible to a lay reader. 2262: 3071: 1927: 1919: 1669: 359: 198: 3856: 3821:

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What is it that you are referring to that are "not planets"? Does the

3715: 122: 2830: 2111:. It's just an essay so doesn't carry the weight of Policy or Guideline, but still some food for thought, namely: 2064: 1728:

Pigliucci's self-published Substack blog where he puts words in Cicero's mouth is not an improvement on Thagard.

347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 1447: 1297: 370: 2424: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 667: 2323:

Here is Pigliucci building on this. Sorry this is paywalled. Maybe I can get you a pdf if you are interested.

2390: 1931: 3175: 2439: 1441: 142: 3811: 3665: 3626: 3459: 3354: 3329:. I think the closest motivation associated with this particular criticism would be "moral reasons": it's 3296: 3234: 3031: 2988: 2582: 2333: 2318: 2207: 2135: 2012: 1719: 1696: 1553: 1516: 1480: 3098:

interpretation of Aristotelian doctrine, even though the first great Islamicate interpreter of Aristotle

2998: 2957: 2854: 2145: 2097: 1455: 1308:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

1301: 435: 68: 3792: 2540: 1491: 806:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

717:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

448: 3807: 83: 3788: 2536: 138: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3751: 3747: 3422:

reasons? They're also not among the most widespread but perhaps it would be useful to add them after

3349: 3326: 3079: 2766: 2649: 2068: 2494: 612: 470: 3898: 3883: 3645: 3549: 3439: 3401: 3256: 3244: 3187: 3124: 3075: 2514: 2419: 2289: 2252: 2202:

that Cicero considered Astrology to be a pseudoscience. Would you like to put that in or should I?

174: 2638:

Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (2020). "Cicero's demarcation of science: a report of shared criteria".

2168: 2101: 3782:

also shows why astrology doesn't live up to any of them. It's a great example of why "NPOV" does

3533: 3418: 2910:

Kassell, Lauren (5 May 2010). "Stars, spirits, signs: towards a history of astrology 1100–1800".

2881: 2793: 2672: 2474: 556: 375: 188: 3517:. For the lay reader, I suspect "political, religious and scientific" would make perfect sense. 3041: 3014: 3010: 2949: 2317:

Here is Fernandez-Beanato making the case that Cicero is actually talking about pseudo science.

2997:

There is an ellipsis which indicates other words can serve the function. Your proposed edit is

1985:

Francesca Rochberg. I'll pursue the exact pages quoted here to see what she is actually saying.

3736:

I would like to add the following link to the "External links" section of the Astrology page:

3661: 3622: 3614: 3455: 3292: 3230: 3222: 3152: 3140: 3027: 2984: 2927: 2874: 2834: 2786: 2665: 2616: 2578: 2482: 2469: 2329: 2203: 2131: 2060: 2008: 1973:

Now looking at your other sources. Do you have the books on hand? Can you provide author bios?

1903: 1875: 1829: 1813: 1804: 1786: 1769: 1715: 1706: 1692: 1658: 1549: 1512: 1501: 1476: 64: 2150:

elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves

3766: 3610: 3218: 3148: 3136: 2919: 2866: 2778: 2657: 1895: 1867: 1851: 1847: 1761: 1570: 1202: 879: 858: 389: 372: 2177:

an indication that it is more likely to be reliable than self-published blogging or e-books

2059:

Tamsyn Barton is an anthropologist specializing in the history of astrology, an alumnus of

1765: 3581: 3522: 3168: 3159:". Finally, if all these sources are really needed, consider putting them all between one 3083: 2225: 2071:. Hanegraaff specializes in the history of astrology and dismissing his research is inane. 1081: 398: 2653: 3894: 3879: 3639: 3543: 3510: 3469: 3433: 3395: 3250: 3181: 2508: 2502: 2490: 2462: 2285: 2248: 1408: 1286: 980: 959: 154: 2007:

17 Such circumstances called for the opportunities afforded by institutionalization."

3911: 3128: 3067: 2884: 2822: 2796: 2675: 2505:, who is a Cicero expert but not a really well-established scholar as far as I know. 1976:

Tamsyn Barton, I can find nothing about then. Do you know what their credentials are?

1639: 1359: 1282: 900: 896: 2472:, who is not an expert on Cicero and published this in a non-academic magazine like 1433: 1270: 3564:"Empirical" and "moral" (better than "ethical") are fine by me. I think the reader 3373: 3365: 2172: 3135:

Some smaller things: 'meteorology' and 'medicine' may perhaps be better linked as

2782: 2175:

is a fringe source (he isn't.) As per your own quotation, academic publication is

2107:

Here is a Knowledge (XXG) essay that you might find useful. You can find it here:

1899: 3573: 3288:

So what should we call that? "rational" "reasoning" "plausibility" "evidentiary"?

3127:

before the 17th century, and certainly no such thing as academic circles. In the

3105:

What it perhaps fails to do, as does the whole article, is to make it clear that

1754:

PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association

1651: 3762: 3318: 2923: 2827:

A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam

2661: 2570: 2154:

Pigliucci has stated that he believes astrology was a pseudoscience in antiquity

1923: 1381:

Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as

3416:

One more thing: wouldn't the twins objection and related criticisms qualify as

1926:

doesn't mean it isn't a real field of study. Hanegraaff's book is published by

1075: 790: 769: 701: 680: 3577: 3518: 3317:, etc.), which revolves around the concern that astrological explanations are 2870: 2486: 1591:

I'm now home and can make a more substantial response to this. You state that

1192: 1071: 904: 2005:

astronomy at Oxford from teaching ‘all judicial astrology without exception’.

1906: 1878: 1816: 1772: 3606: 3358: 3322: 3314: 3310: 3214: 3144: 2562: 2498: 2156:(or something, a single parenthetical is not really notable here.) It would 1871: 1604: 1395: 1382: 1215: 1186: 1165: 1065: 1044: 802:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the 714: 616: 37: 2930: 2877: 2789: 2668: 426:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 1101:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 3369: 3337: 3099: 3091: 3087: 1634:. You also seem to know that it was intended to defend astrology against 1097: 3570:

the twins argument or Averroes' objections based on Aristotelian physics

3291:"...who opposed it for political, doctrinal and plausibility reasons."? 1593:

a group of historians who want to contextualize and legitimize astrology

3618: 3593:"Throughout its history, Astrology has had detractors, competitors and 3309:

quote reflects a classical criticism of astrology (you'll find this in

3226: 3205:"Throughout its history, Astrology has had detractors, competitors and 3156: 2767:"Astrology in the crossfire: the stormy debate after the comet of 1577" 2566: 1385:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 1341:

ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in

892: 2737:

Nicole Oresme and the Astrologers: A Study of his Livre de Divinacions

1970:

Right now the longest paragraph in the lead pushes Thagard's position.

3078:

to settle the dispute or to form anything even remotely resembling a

2456: 1915:

There are others, but these are the main ones referenced in the page.

803: 374: 3040:

Mentioning the tiny minority of critics of astrology before 1800 is

1934:

specializing in the history of astrology and such...in other words,

2096:

As to Pigliucci's Notability you can't have a gripe, so under both

1446:

If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review

3426:. If the list is getting too long that way we could perhaps leave 3958:

Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion

3902: 3887: 3834: 3815: 3796: 3770: 3755: 3669: 3655: 3630: 3585: 3559: 3526: 3476: 3463: 3449: 3411: 3300: 3266: 3238: 3197: 3048: 3035: 3021: 2992: 2968: 2586: 2544: 2524: 2443: 2429: 2394: 2337: 2312: 2293: 2278: 2256: 2241: 2211: 2192: 2139: 2091: 2016: 1955: 1741: 1723: 1700: 1685: 1586: 1557: 1542: 1520: 1484: 2319:"Cicero's demarcation of science: A report of shared criterian" 3844: 3703: 2152:. Thus, it would be an acceptable source for a statement like 1858:

Taub, Liba (1997). "The Rehabilitation of Wretched Subjects".

1714:(he didn’t use that term, but that’s clearly what he meant)." 1428: 1318: 1265: 632: 579: 384: 376: 28: 15: 3364:

Now there were some objections to astrology that were indeed

2619:(January–February 2024). "Pseudoscience:An Ancient Problem". 2501:(already used in the article)). Another useful source may be 1752:

Thagard, Paul R. (1978). "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience".

1500:(Printing 2003. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1448:

the relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy on recruitment of editors

3740: 1886:

Hankinson, R.J. (1988). "Stoicism, Science and Divination".

1322: 1296:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

4058:

Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure

3948:

Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Philosophy and religion

3841:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

2459:, a member of the college of officials who oversaw augury 2109:

Knowledge (XXG):Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy

3700:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

2165:

for the date in which astrology becomes a pseudoscience.

1281:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

3357:'s criticism presented in the article under the header 3272:

But then I need another word to get what I'm aiming at.

2739:. Harvard University Press; Liverpool University Press. 1619:. This view is even shared by Paul Thagard, who writes: 624: 620: 591: 549: 530: 511: 3572:

to be covered by "scientific" in a sentence beginning

1599:

Firstly, there is no such group of historians who are

1343:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

173: 3660:

Okay I put it in. Thanks for all the help everyone!

2171:

isn't really applicable, unless you're implying that

1407:

Theories which have a substantial following, such as

1095:, a project to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s articles on 1333:

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

891:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 713:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2641:

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

187: 3963:GA-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion 3383:The only thing I'm not sure of is to what exactly 2752:Laurens Pignon, O.P.: Confessor of Philip the Good 2121:Being from a "major" (says who?) publisher is not 3918:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use British English 2218:a single parenthetical is not really notable here 1511:I'm pretty sure 1679 is in the 17th century, no? 2411:a pseudoscience, are incredibly important to an 1760:(1). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 223–234. 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3005:were the majority but that astrology continued 2558: 1998: 1622: 3741:Astronehaa - Comprehensive Astrology Resources 2859:The British Journal for the History of Science 1454:. Disputes on Knowledge (XXG) are resolved by 476:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 4053:GA-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance 3102:had been a passionate promoter of astrology). 1002:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views 8: 3590:Okay, if I'm following correctly we have.... 3321:in nature and as such deny the existence of 3132:scholars. I would just leave the phrase out. 1646:, nor was the Society of Astrologers formed 1214:, which collaborates on articles related to 3893:This edit was completed by another editor 1351:Neutral point of view as applied to science 4018:High-importance Alternative Views articles 3599:moral, religious, political, and empirical 3094:rejected astrology because it did not fit 2591: 2265:(which is not an improvement on Thagard.) 1498:The Cambridge concise history of astronomy 1160: 1039: 954: 853: 764: 675: 490: 443: 402:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 3928:Social sciences and society good articles 3340:'s criticism of astrology as outlined in 3164:, perhaps in combination with the use of 1638:criticism, not scientific criticism. The 1394:Theories which have a following, such as 461:Social sciences and society good articles 3761:Knowledge (XXG) is not for advertising. 3348:The "natural science" here is of course 3509:I don't think "doctrinal" works. After 2719:was invoked but never defined (see the 2608: 2399:There are no rules or guidelines which 2222:scholar of Greek and Roman philosophers 1569:P.S. If you didn't know, Cicero was an 1162: 1041: 956: 855: 766: 677: 4023:WikiProject Alternative Views articles 3943:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles 3605:circles, often in close relation with 3569: 3468:I will note here that I will defer to 3427: 3423: 3417: 3384: 3380: 3379:So all in all I would suggest for now 3345: 3213:circles, often in close relation with 3006: 3002: 2961: 2953: 2754:. Venlo, The Netherlands: Jean Mielot. 2468:It's a bit tricky to use someone like 2454: 2404: 2221: 2217: 2176: 2153: 2149: 2053: 1844:Astral Sciences of Ancient Mesopotamia 1766:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639 1662: 1652:not coined until the late 18th century 1647: 1643: 1631: 1616: 1612: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1442:recruit editors of specific viewpoints 1005:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views 917:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism 3636:Thanks for all the trouble you took, 3003:detractors, competitors, and skeptics 2964:-- which is what the lead here says. 1852:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.62 1470:Since When Has It Been Pseudoscience? 1356:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 1345:. The final decision was as follows: 1224:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy 727:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astrology 434:, this should not be changed without 7: 4063:Knowledge (XXG) controversial topics 2551:Detractors, competitors and skeptics 1824:Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2012-01-19). 1801:A brief history of ancient astrology 1416:Alternative theoretical formulations 1208:This article is within the scope of 1123:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Religion 1087:This article is within the scope of 986:This article is within the scope of 885:This article is within the scope of 796:This article is within the scope of 707:This article is within the scope of 638: 636: 4013:GA-Class Alternative Views articles 2765:Almasi, Gabor (February 11, 2022). 2711: 1982:But the following look legit to me: 1617:in opposition to Natural Philosophy 666:It is of interest to the following 36:for discussing improvements to the 4003:Top-importance Skepticism articles 3472:on this as I trust their opinion. 2891:from the original on 26 March 2023 1918:Anyway, just because you put the 1842:Rochberg, Francesca (2018-07-10), 1390:Generally considered pseudoscience 816:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Occult 14: 4048:Mid-importance Astronomy articles 3973:Top-importance astrology articles 3281:" (King Lear, Act one, Scene Two) 2327:Pseudoscience: An Ancient Problem 1988:Liba Taub also looks legit to me. 1609:historians of science are experts 469:. If you can improve it further, 63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4033:Top-importance Religion articles 3848: 3707: 2803:from the original on 7 June 2023 2302:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 2268:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 2231:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 2224:insofar as he's associated with 2182:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 2081:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1945:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1731:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1675:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1605:Reception in the social sciences 1576:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1532:MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! 1432: 1269: 1195: 1185: 1164: 1074: 1064: 1043: 979: 958: 878: 857: 789: 768: 700: 679: 646: 637: 583: 447: 388: 358: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 4008:WikiProject Skepticism articles 3953:GA-Class level-4 vital articles 3806:If not planets, what are they? 1712:the pseudoscience of divination 1244:This article has been rated as 1143:This article has been rated as 1022:This article has been rated as 937:This article has been rated as 920:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 836:This article has been rated as 747:This article has been rated as 3988:Top-importance Occult articles 3978:WikiProject Astrology articles 3825:article answer your question? 3143:. A better order may also be " 2261:Mme Dolya is referencing this 1828:. Cambridge University Press. 1227:Template:WikiProject Astronomy 730:Template:WikiProject Astrology 457:has been listed as one of the 1: 4038:WikiProject Religion articles 3923:Knowledge (XXG) good articles 2783:10.1080/00033790.2022.2030409 2403:us to mark something without 2163:not an improvement on Thagard 1900:10.1515/apeiron.1988.21.2.123 1894:(2). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. 1803:. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 1496:Hoskin, Michael, ed. (2003). 1310:contentious topics procedures 1126:Template:WikiProject Religion 989:WikiProject Alternative views 911:and see a list of open tasks. 810:and see a list of open tasks. 721:and see a list of open tasks. 55:Put new text under old text. 3998:GA-Class Skepticism articles 3933:Old requests for peer review 3670:23:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) 3656:12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 3631:01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 3586:21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 3560:13:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 3527:21:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC) 3477:07:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC) 3464:21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 3450:15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 3412:14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 3301:03:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 3267:11:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 3239:05:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) 3198:00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 3049:05:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 3036:05:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 3022:07:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) 2525:20:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 1452:neutral point of view policy 1440:There have been attempts to 4043:GA-Class Astronomy articles 3993:WikiProject Occult articles 3968:GA-Class astrology articles 3871:to reactivate your request. 3859:has been answered. Set the 3730:to reactivate your request. 3718:has been answered. Set the 2993:22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2969:07:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC) 2924:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.04.001 2662:10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.04.002 2587:17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC) 2338:06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 2313:07:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 2294:06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) 2279:07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) 2257:23:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC) 1846:, Oxford University Press, 1826:Esotericism and the Academy 819:Template:WikiProject Occult 4079: 4028:GA-Class Religion articles 3474:Tryin to make a change :-/ 3072:French Academy of Sciences 3046:Tryin to make a change :-/ 3019:Tryin to make a change :-/ 2966:Tryin to make a change :-/ 2853:Pfeffer, Michelle (2021). 2691:Lament, Death, and Destiny 2054:two questions on the table 1928:Cambridge University Press 1860:Early Science and Medicine 1748:Let's start with Thagard: 1670:Template:Talk quote inline 1601:overwhelming the consensus 1298:purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 1250:project's importance scale 1149:project's importance scale 1028:project's importance scale 1008:Alternative Views articles 943:project's importance scale 842:project's importance scale 753:project's importance scale 538:Featured article candidate 3903:20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC) 3888:16:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 3797:00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2871:10.1017/S0007087421000029 2831:New York University Press 2750:Vanderjagt, A.J. (1985). 2545:00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2444:13:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2125:that a source is reliable 2065:SOAS University of London 1312:before editing this page. 1243: 1180: 1142: 1059: 1021: 974: 936: 873: 835: 784: 746: 695: 674: 623:; for its talk page, see 570: 493: 489: 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 3983:GA-Class Occult articles 3835:01:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3816:00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 3771:09:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC) 3756:09:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) 2735:Coopland, G. W. (1952). 2689:Hughes, Richard (2004). 2430:04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2395:03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2247:anyone else can follow. 2242:00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC) 2216:As I originally stated, 2212:21:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC) 2193:02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC) 2140:23:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 2092:01:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) 2017:14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) 1956:00:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 1742:00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 1724:23:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1701:23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1686:07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1587:01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1558:00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1543:22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 1521:04:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 1485:15:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC) 1337:In December of 2006 the 1306:normal editorial process 1113:standards, or visit the 21: 3938:GA-Class vital articles 3178:just really looks bad. 1932:University of Amsterdam 1872:10.1163/157338297x00023 1781:Barton, Tamsyn (1994). 1613:overwhelm the consensus 1458:, not by majority vote. 1293:as a contentious topic. 3574:Throughout its history 3359:theological viewpoints 3355:Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya 2575: 2455:Cicero himself was an 2453:Did you know that ... 1999: 1991:Hankinson is good too. 1632:Society of Astrologers 1627: 1327: 1302:standards of behaviour 888:WikiProject Skepticism 88:avoid personal attacks 2493:(access possible via 1644:not taking seriously 1494:, not the reference) 1492:Astrology and science 1377:Obvious pseudoscience 1367:Serious encyclopedias 1339:Arbitration Committee 1326: 1211:WikiProject Astronomy 710:WikiProject Astrology 660:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 653:level-4 vital article 467:good article criteria 352:Auto-archiving period 113:Neutral point of view 3823:Planets in astrology 3350:Aristotelian physics 3327:moral responsibility 3080:scientific consensus 3013:.) That is textbook 2715:The named reference 2703:Barton, 1994. p. 32. 2693:. Peter Lang. p. 87. 2069:Cambridge University 1799:Beck, Roger (2007). 1785:. Psychology Press. 1403:Questionable science 1091:WikiProject Religion 611:. Its contents were 607:with a consensus to 557:Good article nominee 432:relevant style guide 428:varieties of English 118:No original research 3597:who opposed it for 3368:in nature, such as 3245:academic skepticism 3076:academy of sciences 2654:2020SHPSA..83...97F 1866:(1). Brill: 74–87. 1218:on Knowledge (XXG). 923:Skepticism articles 430:. According to the 2956:is a weasel word ( 2621:Skeptical Inquirer 2617:Pigliucci, Massimo 2475:Skeptical Inquirer 2067:, with a PhD from 1328: 1279:contentious topics 1230:Astronomy articles 1103:assess and improve 799:WikiProject Occult 733:astrology articles 662:content assessment 595:was nominated for 494:Article milestones 99:dispute resolution 60: 3875: 3874: 3734: 3733: 3001:and implies that 2999:WP:EDITORIALizing 2944: 2943: 2839:978-0-8147-8023-7 2833:. pp. 60, 67–69. 2771:Annals of Science 2483:Malcolm Schofield 2470:Massimo Pigliucci 2061:Oxford University 1834:978-0-521-19621-5 1809:978-0-470-77377-2 1791:978-0-415-11029-7 1783:Ancient Astrology 1707:Massimo Pigliucci 1663:ot an improvement 1661:, your edits are 1659:User:AndytheGrump 1462: 1461: 1450:, as well as the 1427: 1426: 1317: 1316: 1289:, which has been 1264: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1129:Religion articles 1117:for more details. 1038: 1037: 1034: 1033: 999:Alternative Views 966:Alternative Views 953: 952: 949: 948: 852: 851: 848: 847: 763: 762: 759: 758: 631: 630: 592:Mundane astrology 578: 577: 566: 565: 531:December 13, 2006 485: 442: 441: 383: 382: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 4070: 3866: 3862: 3852: 3851: 3845: 3725: 3721: 3711: 3710: 3704: 3654: 3648: 3642: 3575: 3558: 3552: 3546: 3448: 3442: 3436: 3410: 3404: 3398: 3342:Freudenthal 2009 3325:, and therefore 3265: 3259: 3253: 3196: 3190: 3184: 3173: 3167: 3163: 2935: 2934: 2907: 2901: 2900: 2898: 2896: 2850: 2844: 2843: 2819: 2813: 2812: 2810: 2808: 2762: 2756: 2755: 2747: 2741: 2740: 2732: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2718: 2710: 2704: 2701: 2695: 2694: 2686: 2680: 2679: 2635: 2629: 2628: 2613: 2592: 2523: 2517: 2511: 2427: 2422: 2308:talk or whatever 2274:talk or whatever 2237:talk or whatever 2188:talk or whatever 2087:talk or whatever 1951:talk or whatever 1910: 1882: 1854: 1838: 1820: 1795: 1776: 1737:talk or whatever 1681:talk or whatever 1630:You mention the 1582:talk or whatever 1571:academic skeptic 1538:talk or whatever 1510: 1444:to this article. 1436: 1429: 1325: 1319: 1273: 1266: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1205: 1203:Astronomy portal 1200: 1199: 1198: 1189: 1182: 1181: 1176: 1168: 1161: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1115:wikiproject page 1084: 1079: 1078: 1068: 1061: 1060: 1055: 1047: 1040: 1010: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 983: 976: 975: 970: 962: 955: 925: 924: 921: 918: 915: 882: 875: 874: 869: 861: 854: 824: 823: 820: 817: 814: 793: 786: 785: 780: 772: 765: 735: 734: 731: 728: 725: 704: 697: 696: 691: 683: 676: 659: 650: 649: 642: 641: 640: 633: 587: 586: 580: 571:Current status: 552: 533: 514: 491: 474: 451: 444: 395:This article is 392: 385: 377: 363: 362: 353: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 4078: 4077: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4069: 4068: 4067: 3908: 3907: 3864: 3860: 3849: 3843: 3804: 3779: 3723: 3719: 3708: 3702: 3646: 3640: 3637: 3550: 3544: 3541: 3440: 3434: 3431: 3402: 3396: 3393: 3366:epistemological 3257: 3251: 3248: 3188: 3182: 3179: 3171: 3165: 3160: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2894: 2892: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2840: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2806: 2804: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2716: 2714: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2698: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2597: 2573:, and medicine. 2553: 2515: 2509: 2506: 2425: 2420: 2311: 2277: 2240: 2226:modern Stoicism 2191: 2090: 1954: 1885: 1857: 1841: 1835: 1823: 1810: 1798: 1792: 1780: 1751: 1740: 1684: 1657:To concur with 1585: 1541: 1507: 1495: 1472: 1423: 1422: 1334: 1323: 1300:, any expected 1229: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1201: 1196: 1194: 1174: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1082:Religion portal 1080: 1073: 1053: 1024:High-importance 1007: 1004: 1001: 998: 997: 969:High‑importance 968: 922: 919: 916: 913: 912: 867: 822:Occult articles 821: 818: 815: 812: 811: 778: 732: 729: 726: 723: 722: 689: 657: 647: 584: 550:January 2, 2014 548: 529: 510: 436:broad consensus 399:British English 379: 378: 373: 350: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 4076: 4074: 4066: 4065: 4060: 4055: 4050: 4045: 4040: 4035: 4030: 4025: 4020: 4015: 4010: 4005: 4000: 3995: 3990: 3985: 3980: 3975: 3970: 3965: 3960: 3955: 3950: 3945: 3940: 3935: 3930: 3925: 3920: 3910: 3909: 3906: 3905: 3873: 3872: 3853: 3842: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3803: 3800: 3778: 3777:Great article! 3775: 3774: 3773: 3744: 3743: 3732: 3731: 3712: 3701: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3591: 3537: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3414: 3377: 3362: 3334: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3273: 3203: 3133: 3120: 3103: 3086:thinkers like 3063: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 2980:is a consensus 2972: 2971: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2902: 2865:(2): 133–153. 2845: 2838: 2823:Saliba, George 2814: 2777:(2): 137–163. 2757: 2742: 2727: 2705: 2696: 2681: 2630: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2595: 2590: 2561:relation with 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2532: 2491:Schofield 1986 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2421:wound theology 2416: 2414: 2410: 2402: 2382: 2378: 2376: 2375:qualification. 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2324: 2321: 2305: 2271: 2234: 2185: 2166: 2164: 2159: 2128: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2105: 2084: 2078:suggest such. 2075: 2072: 2057: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2019: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1948: 1940: 1937: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1883: 1855: 1839: 1833: 1821: 1808: 1796: 1790: 1778: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1734: 1678: 1666: 1655: 1637: 1628: 1620: 1611:. There is no 1610: 1589: 1579: 1567: 1535: 1527: 1506:978-0521572910 1505: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1460: 1459: 1437: 1425: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1412: 1409:psychoanalysis 1399: 1386: 1373: 1363: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1329: 1315: 1314: 1287:fringe science 1274: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1246:Mid-importance 1242: 1236: 1235: 1233: 1207: 1206: 1190: 1178: 1177: 1175:Mid‑importance 1169: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1145:Top-importance 1141: 1135: 1134: 1132: 1086: 1085: 1069: 1057: 1056: 1054:Top‑importance 1048: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1020: 1014: 1013: 1011: 984: 972: 971: 963: 951: 950: 947: 946: 939:Top-importance 935: 929: 928: 926: 909:the discussion 883: 871: 870: 868:Top‑importance 862: 850: 849: 846: 845: 838:Top-importance 834: 828: 827: 825: 808:the discussion 794: 782: 781: 779:Top‑importance 773: 761: 760: 757: 756: 749:Top-importance 745: 739: 738: 736: 719:the discussion 705: 693: 692: 690:Top‑importance 684: 672: 671: 665: 643: 629: 628: 603:was closed on 601:The discussion 588: 576: 575: 568: 567: 564: 563: 560: 553: 545: 544: 541: 534: 526: 525: 522: 515: 507: 506: 503: 500: 496: 495: 487: 486: 452: 440: 439: 393: 381: 380: 371: 369: 368: 365: 364: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4075: 4064: 4061: 4059: 4056: 4054: 4051: 4049: 4046: 4044: 4041: 4039: 4036: 4034: 4031: 4029: 4026: 4024: 4021: 4019: 4016: 4014: 4011: 4009: 4006: 4004: 4001: 3999: 3996: 3994: 3991: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3981: 3979: 3976: 3974: 3971: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3961: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3951: 3949: 3946: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3936: 3934: 3931: 3929: 3926: 3924: 3921: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3913: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3870: 3867:parameter to 3858: 3854: 3847: 3846: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3801: 3799: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3785: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3742: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3729: 3726:parameter to 3717: 3713: 3706: 3705: 3699: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3652: 3649: 3643: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3556: 3553: 3547: 3538: 3535: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3478: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3443: 3437: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3415: 3413: 3408: 3405: 3399: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3356: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319:deterministic 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3263: 3260: 3254: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3194: 3191: 3185: 3177: 3176:WP:REFCLUTTER 3170: 3162:</ref: --> 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3121: 3118: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3074:or any other 3073: 3069: 3068:Royal Society 3064: 3060: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2970: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2932: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2906: 2903: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2879: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2849: 2846: 2841: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2818: 2815: 2802: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2761: 2758: 2753: 2746: 2743: 2738: 2731: 2728: 2722: 2709: 2706: 2700: 2697: 2692: 2685: 2682: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2634: 2631: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2574: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2557: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2521: 2518: 2512: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2477: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2464: 2460: 2458: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2428: 2423: 2417: 2412: 2408: 2406: 2405:qualification 2400: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2377: 2373: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2309: 2304: 2303: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2275: 2270: 2269: 2264: 2263:substack post 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2238: 2233: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2189: 2184: 2183: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2167: 2162: 2157: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2126: 2124: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2082: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2020: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1941: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1640:Royal Society 1635: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1608: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1588: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1469: 1467: 1464: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1443: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1360:pseudoscience 1357: 1354: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1330: 1321: 1320: 1313: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1283:pseudoscience 1280: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1251: 1247: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1217: 1213: 1212: 1204: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1150: 1146: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1083: 1077: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1052: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1029: 1025: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1012: 995: 991: 990: 985: 982: 978: 977: 973: 967: 964: 961: 957: 944: 940: 934: 931: 930: 927: 910: 906: 902: 901:pseudohistory 898: 897:pseudoscience 894: 890: 889: 884: 881: 877: 876: 872: 866: 863: 860: 856: 843: 839: 833: 830: 829: 826: 809: 805: 801: 800: 795: 792: 788: 787: 783: 777: 774: 771: 767: 754: 750: 744: 741: 740: 737: 720: 716: 712: 711: 706: 703: 699: 698: 694: 688: 685: 682: 678: 673: 669: 663: 655: 654: 644: 635: 634: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 605:02 April 2012 602: 598: 594: 593: 589: 582: 581: 574: 569: 561: 559: 558: 554: 551: 547: 546: 542: 540: 539: 535: 532: 528: 527: 523: 521: 520: 516: 513: 512:July 11, 2006 509: 508: 504: 501: 498: 497: 492: 488: 483: 481: 480: 472: 468: 464: 463: 462: 456: 453: 450: 446: 445: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 400: 394: 391: 387: 386: 367: 366: 361: 357: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 202: 200: 196: 195: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 3876: 3868: 3857:edit request 3808:Athanasius V 3805: 3783: 3780: 3745: 3735: 3727: 3716:edit request 3662:DolyaIskrina 3623:DolyaIskrina 3602: 3598: 3594: 3565: 3514: 3456:DolyaIskrina 3388: 3330: 3306: 3293:DolyaIskrina 3277: 3231:DolyaIskrina 3210: 3206: 3161:<ref: --> 3116: 3111: 3106: 3095: 3084:Aristotelian 3028:DolyaIskrina 2985:DolyaIskrina 2979: 2958:WP:EDITORIAL 2918:(2): 67–69. 2915: 2911: 2905: 2893:. Retrieved 2862: 2858: 2848: 2826: 2817: 2805:. Retrieved 2774: 2770: 2760: 2751: 2745: 2736: 2730: 2713:Cite error: 2708: 2699: 2690: 2684: 2645: 2639: 2633: 2627:(1): 18, 19. 2624: 2620: 2611: 2603: 2579:DolyaIskrina 2576: 2559: 2554: 2480: 2473: 2467: 2452: 2413:encyclopedic 2387:66.41.165.13 2330:DolyaIskrina 2301: 2267: 2230: 2204:DolyaIskrina 2199: 2181: 2173:Paul Thagard 2146:WP:ABOUTSELF 2132:DolyaIskrina 2122: 2120: 2098:WP:ABOUTSELF 2080: 2009:DolyaIskrina 2003: 1944: 1924:scare quotes 1891: 1887: 1863: 1859: 1843: 1825: 1800: 1782: 1757: 1753: 1730: 1716:DolyaIskrina 1711: 1693:DolyaIskrina 1674: 1668:Man, I love 1623: 1575: 1566:admits this. 1563: 1550:DolyaIskrina 1531: 1513:DolyaIskrina 1497: 1477:DolyaIskrina 1473: 1465: 1463: 1439: 1414: 1401: 1388: 1375: 1365: 1349: 1336: 1295: 1276: 1245: 1209: 1144: 1105:articles to 1096: 1089: 1088: 1023: 987: 938: 886: 837: 797: 748: 708: 668:WikiProjects 651: 608: 604: 590: 573:Good article 572: 555: 543:Not promoted 536: 517: 477: 475: 471:please do so 459: 458: 454: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 396: 355: 197: 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 32:This is the 3802:" planets"? 3789:Jonathan f1 3611:meteorology 3568:understand 3374:Saliba 2011 3219:meteorology 3174:templates. 3149:meteorology 3137:meteorology 3007:nonetheless 2954:nonetheless 2571:meteorology 2537:Jonathan f1 2436:1.132.25.24 1920:esotericism 1672:so much... 1648:in contrast 621:its history 519:Peer review 397:written in 161:free images 44:not a forum 3912:Categories 3861:|answered= 3827:CodeTalker 3748:Astronehaa 3720:|answered= 3389:detractors 3129:scholastic 2648:: 97–102. 2604:References 2596:References 2503:Wynne 2019 2495:WP:LIBRARY 2487:A. A. Long 2463:Wynne 2019 1526:astrology. 1291:designated 994:discussion 914:Skepticism 905:skepticism 865:Skepticism 465:under the 3895:RudolfRed 3880:Dubsarmah 3641:Apaugasma 3607:astronomy 3545:Apaugasma 3534:empirical 3511:Apaugasma 3470:Apaugasma 3435:Apaugasma 3428:political 3424:doctrinal 3419:empirical 3397:Apaugasma 3385:political 3323:free will 3315:Augustine 3311:Carneades 3307:King Lear 3252:Apaugasma 3215:astronomy 3183:Apaugasma 3145:astronomy 3125:academies 2895:2 January 2885:232232073 2825:(1994b). 2797:246749889 2721:help page 2676:216477897 2563:astronomy 2510:Apaugasma 2499:Long 2005 2286:SamuelRiv 2249:SamuelRiv 2169:WP:PARITY 2102:WP:PARITY 1907:2156-7093 1879:1383-7427 1817:214281257 1773:0270-8647 1636:religious 1456:consensus 1396:astrology 1383:Time Cube 1304:, or any 1221:Astronomy 1216:Astronomy 1172:Astronomy 724:Astrology 715:Astrology 687:Astrology 656:is rated 617:Astrology 455:Astrology 408:travelled 101:if needed 84:Be polite 38:Astrology 34:talk page 3615:medicine 3595:doubters 3392:Thanks, 3370:Avicenna 3338:Averroes 3223:medicine 3211:learned 3207:doubters 3153:medicine 3141:medicine 3100:al-Kindi 3092:Averroes 3088:Avicenna 3042:WP:UNDUE 3015:WP:SYNTH 3011:WP:UNDUE 2950:WP:SYNTH 2948:This is 2931:20513617 2889:Archived 2878:33719982 2801:Archived 2790:35147491 2669:32958286 2465:p. 183)? 1939:studies. 1705:Here is 1120:Religion 1098:Religion 1051:Religion 658:GA-class 597:deletion 524:Reviewed 479:reassess 420:artefact 199:Archives 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 3619:alchemy 3603:learned 3331:immoral 3227:alchemy 3157:alchemy 3117:explain 2650:Bibcode 2567:alchemy 2401:require 2144:As per 2130:Cheers 1936:exactly 1888:Apeiron 1248:on the 1147:on the 1026:on the 941:on the 893:science 840:on the 751:on the 502:Process 424:analyse 416:defence 356:30 days 167:WP refs 155:scholar 3763:Cabayi 3617:, and 3285:times. 3225:, and 3169:harvnb 3155:, and 2807:7 June 2497:) and 2409:became 2381:worse. 813:Occult 804:occult 776:Occult 664:scale. 613:merged 562:Listed 505:Result 412:centre 404:colour 139:Google 3865:|ans= 3855:This 3724:|ans= 3714:This 3578:Srnec 3566:would 3519:Srnec 3430:out. 3096:their 2882:S2CID 2794:S2CID 2717:Wood8 2673:S2CID 2489:(see 2457:augur 2123:proof 1564:et al 1372:work. 645:This 615:into 609:merge 204:Index 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 3899:talk 3884:talk 3831:talk 3812:talk 3793:talk 3767:talk 3752:talk 3666:talk 3647:talk 3627:talk 3582:talk 3551:talk 3523:talk 3515:Lear 3460:talk 3441:talk 3403:talk 3305:The 3297:talk 3258:talk 3235:talk 3189:talk 3139:and 3112:that 3107:none 3090:and 3032:talk 2989:talk 2952:and 2928:PMID 2897:2023 2875:PMID 2835:ISBN 2809:2023 2787:PMID 2666:PMID 2583:talk 2541:talk 2516:talk 2485:and 2440:talk 2391:talk 2334:talk 2290:talk 2253:talk 2208:talk 2200:says 2136:talk 2100:and 2063:and 2013:talk 1904:ISSN 1876:ISSN 1830:ISBN 1814:OCLC 1805:ISBN 1787:ISBN 1770:ISSN 1758:1978 1720:talk 1697:talk 1595:are 1554:talk 1517:talk 1502:ISBN 1481:talk 1285:and 1277:The 1109:and 1107:good 1018:High 903:and 625:here 499:Date 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 3863:or 3784:not 3722:or 3621:." 3229:." 3070:or 2920:doi 2867:doi 2779:doi 2658:doi 2158:not 2117:... 1922:in 1896:doi 1868:doi 1848:doi 1762:doi 1240:Mid 1139:Top 1111:1.0 933:Top 832:Top 743:Top 599:. 189:TWL 3914:: 3901:) 3886:) 3869:no 3833:) 3814:) 3795:) 3769:) 3754:) 3728:no 3668:) 3638:☿ 3629:) 3613:, 3609:, 3584:) 3542:☿ 3525:) 3462:) 3432:☿ 3394:☿ 3313:, 3299:) 3249:☿ 3237:) 3221:, 3217:, 3180:☿ 3172:}} 3166:{{ 3151:, 3147:, 3044:. 3034:) 2991:) 2926:. 2916:41 2914:. 2887:. 2880:. 2873:. 2863:54 2861:. 2857:. 2829:. 2799:. 2792:. 2785:. 2775:79 2773:. 2769:. 2723:). 2671:. 2664:. 2656:. 2646:83 2644:. 2625:48 2623:. 2585:) 2569:, 2565:, 2543:) 2507:☿ 2442:) 2393:) 2336:) 2292:) 2255:) 2210:) 2148:, 2138:) 2015:) 1902:. 1892:21 1890:. 1874:. 1862:. 1812:. 1768:. 1756:. 1722:) 1699:) 1556:) 1519:) 1483:) 899:, 895:, 482:it 473:. 422:, 418:, 414:, 410:, 406:, 354:: 348:36 346:, 344:35 342:, 340:34 338:, 336:33 334:, 332:32 330:, 328:31 326:, 324:30 322:, 320:29 318:, 316:28 314:, 312:27 310:, 308:26 306:, 304:25 302:, 300:24 298:, 296:23 294:, 292:22 290:, 288:21 286:, 284:20 282:, 280:19 278:, 276:18 274:, 272:17 270:, 268:16 266:, 264:15 262:, 260:14 258:, 256:13 254:, 252:12 250:, 248:11 246:, 244:10 242:, 238:, 234:, 230:, 226:, 222:, 218:, 214:, 210:, 206:, 169:) 67:; 3897:( 3882:( 3829:( 3810:( 3791:( 3765:( 3750:( 3664:( 3653:) 3651:☉ 3644:( 3625:( 3580:( 3557:) 3555:☉ 3548:( 3521:( 3458:( 3447:) 3445:☉ 3438:( 3409:) 3407:☉ 3400:( 3295:( 3276:" 3264:) 3262:☉ 3255:( 3233:( 3195:) 3193:☉ 3186:( 3030:( 3009:( 2987:( 2933:. 2922:: 2899:. 2869:: 2842:. 2811:. 2781:: 2678:. 2660:: 2652:: 2581:( 2539:( 2522:) 2520:☉ 2513:( 2461:( 2438:( 2426:◈ 2389:( 2332:( 2310:) 2306:( 2288:( 2276:) 2272:( 2251:( 2239:) 2235:( 2206:( 2190:) 2186:( 2134:( 2089:) 2085:( 2011:( 1953:) 1949:( 1909:. 1898:: 1881:. 1870:: 1864:2 1850:: 1837:. 1819:. 1794:. 1777:' 1775:. 1764:: 1739:) 1735:( 1718:( 1695:( 1683:) 1679:( 1665:. 1654:. 1584:) 1580:( 1552:( 1540:) 1536:( 1515:( 1509:. 1479:( 1405:: 1392:: 1379:: 1369:: 1362:. 1353:: 1252:. 1151:. 1030:. 996:. 945:. 844:. 755:. 670:: 627:. 484:. 438:. 240:9 236:8 232:7 228:6 224:5 220:4 216:3 212:2 208:1 201:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.