Editing Astrology (section)

== Scientific analysis and criticism ==

{{main|Astrology and science}}

{{Paranormal|main}}

[[File:Karl Popper.jpg|thumb|upright|Popper proposed falsifiability as something that distinguishes science from non-science, using astrology as the example of an idea that has not dealt with falsification during experiment.]]

The scientific community rejects astrology as having no explanatory power for describing the universe, and considers it a [[pseudoscience]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|author1=Sven Ove Hansson|author2=Edward N. Zalta|title=Science and Pseudo-Science|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=6 July 2012|quote=[...] advocates of pseudo-sciences such as astrology and homeopathy tend to describe their theories as conformable to mainstream science.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=Andrew|last=Fraknoi|title=Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List|url=http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html|publisher=Astronomical Society of the Pacific|access-date=13 January 2007|archive-date=30 December 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111230053308/http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hartmann |first1=P. |last2=Reuter |first2=M. |last3=Nyborga |first3=H. |date=May 2006 |title=The relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence: A large-scale study |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=40 |issue=7 |pages=1349–1362 <!--p. 1350-->|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.017}}</ref> Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zarka |first=Philippe |title=Astronomy and Astrology |journal=Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union |year=2011 |volume=5 |issue=S260 |page=424 |doi=10.1017/S1743921311002602 |bibcode=2011IAUS..260..420Z |url=https://zenodo.org/record/890932 |doi-access=free |access-date=16 September 2019 |archive-date=18 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200818112236/https://zenodo.org/record/890932 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Astrology True or False?: A Scientific Evaluation |publisher=Prometheus Books |year=1988 |first1=Roger B. |last1=Culver |first2=Philip A. |last2=Ianna |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OhoRAQAAIAAJ|isbn=978-0-87975-483-9 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=McGrew |first1=John H. |last2=McFall |first2=Richard M. |title=A Scientific Inquiry into the Validity of Astrology |journal=Journal of Scientific Exploration |volume=4 |number=1 |pages=75–83 |year=1990 |url=http://www.skepticalmedia.com/astrology/Scientific%20Inquiry%20into%20Astrology.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.skepticalmedia.com/astrology/Scientific%20Inquiry%20into%20Astrology.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live}}</ref> There is no proposed [[Scientific modelling|mechanism of action]] by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict basic and well understood aspects of biology and physics.<ref>{{cite book |editor3-last=Vishveshwara |editor3-first=C. V. |editor1-last=Biswas |editor1-first=S. K. |editor2-last=Mallik |editor2-first=D. C. V. |title=Cosmic Perspectives: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of M. K. V. Bappu |year=1989 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0-521-34354-1 |edition=1st |p=249}}</ref><ref name="Reidel-1978">{{cite book | editor=Peter D. Asquith |title=Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1 |year=1978 |publisher=Reidel |location=Dordrecht |isbn=978-0-917586-05-7 |url=http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/astrology.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/astrology.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live}}; {{cite web |title=Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding |url=https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm |work=science and engineering indicators 2006 |publisher=National Science Foundation |access-date=2 August 2016  |quote=About three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items[29]"...&nbsp;" Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130201220040/https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm |archive-date=1 February 2013  |df=dmy}}</ref> Those who have faith in astrology have been characterised by scientists including Bart J. Bok as doing so "...in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary".<ref>{{cite web|title=Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists|publisher=The Humanist, September/October 1975|url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/astrology.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090318140638/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/astrology.html|archive-date=18 March 2009}}; [http://thehumanist.org/the-humanist-archive/ The Humanist] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111007094955/http://thehumanist.org/the-humanist-archive/ |date=7 October 2011 }}, volume 36, no.5 (1976); {{cite book |title=Philosophy of Science and the Occult |chapter=Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists |year=1982 |publisher=State University of New York Press|location=Albany |isbn=978-0-87395-572-0 |pages=14–18 |author=Bok, Bart J. |author2=Lawrence E. Jerome |author3=Paul Kurtz |author-link3=Paul Kurtz |editor=Patrick Grim}}</ref>

[[Confirmation bias]] is a form of [[cognitive bias]], a [[Psychology|psychological]] factor that contributes to belief in astrology.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Allum |first=Nick |title=What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific?, p. 344 |journal=Science Communication |date=13 December 2010 |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=341–366 |doi=10.1177/1075547010389819|url=https://repository.essex.ac.uk/6076/1/allum-astrology2009.pdf}}</ref>{{sfn|Nickerson|1998|pp=180–181}}{{sfn|Eysenck|Nias|1982|pp=42–48}}<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Jean-Paul |editor1-last=Caverni |editor2-first=Jean-Marc |editor2-last=Fabre |editor3-first=Michel |editor3-last=Gonzalez |title=Cognitive biases |year=1990 |publisher=North-Holland |location=Amsterdam |isbn=978-0-444-88413-8 |page=553}}</ref>{{efn|see [[Heuristics in judgement and decision making]]}} Astrology believers tend to selectively remember predictions that turn out to be true, and do not remember those that turn out false. Another, separate, form of confirmation bias also plays a role, where believers often fail to distinguish between messages that demonstrate special ability and those that do not.{{sfn|Nickerson|1998|pp=180–181}} Thus there are two distinct forms of confirmation bias that are under study with respect to astrological belief.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nickerson |first1=Raymond S. |title=Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises |journal=Review of General Psychology|year=1998 |volume=2 |series=2 |pages=<!--175–220-->180–181 |doi=10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 |issue=2 |citeseerx=10.1.1.93.4839|s2cid=8508954}}</ref>

=== Demarcation ===

Under the criterion of [[falsifiability]], first proposed by the [[philosopher of science]] [[Karl Popper]], astrology is a pseudoscience.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |author=Stephen Thornton |editor=Edward N. Zalta |title=Karl Popper|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|year=2018}}</ref> Popper regarded astrology as "pseudo-empirical" in that "it appeals to observation and experiment," but "nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards."<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge |year=2004 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-0-415-28594-0 |edition=Reprinted}}{{rp|44}}
* The relevant piece is also in {{cite book |last=Schick|first=Theodore Jr.|title=Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism|year=2000|publisher=Mayfield Pub|location=Mountain View, CA|isbn=978-0-7674-0277-4 |pages=33–39 |ref=none}}</ref> In contrast to scientific disciplines, astrology has not responded to falsification through experiment.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cogan |first=Robert |title=Critical Thinking: Step by Step |year=1998 |publisher=University Press of America |location=Lanham, Md. |isbn=978-0-7618-1067-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/criticalthinking0000coga }}</ref>{{rp|206}}

In contrast to Popper, the philosopher [[Thomas Kuhn]] argued that it was not lack of falsifiability that makes astrology unscientific, but rather that the process and concepts of astrology are non-empirical.<ref name="Wright-1975">{{cite journal |last=Wright |first=Peter |title=Astrology and Science in Seventeenth-Century England |journal=Social Studies of Science |year=1975 |pages=399–422 | doi = 10.1177/030631277500500402 |pmid=11610221 |volume=5|issue=4 |s2cid=32085403 }}</ref>{{rp|401}} Kuhn thought that, though astrologers had, historically, made predictions that categorically failed, this in itself does not make astrology unscientific, nor do attempts by astrologers to explain away failures by saying that creating a horoscope is very difficult. Rather, in Kuhn's eyes, astrology is not science because it was always more akin to [[Medieval medicine of Western Europe|medieval medicine]]; astrologers followed a sequence of rules and guidelines for a seemingly necessary field with known shortcomings, but they did no research because the fields are not amenable to research,<ref name="Kuhn-1970" />{{rp|8}} and so "they had no puzzles to solve and therefore no science to practise."<ref name="Wright-1975" />{{rp|401;}}<ref name="Kuhn-1970">{{cite book |last=Kuhn |first=Thomas |title=Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science [held at Bedford College, Regent's Park, London, from July 11th to 17th 1965] |year=1970 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0-521-09623-2 |edition=Reprint |editor=[[Imre Lakatos]] |editor2=[[Alan Musgrave]] |url=https://archive.org/details/criticismgrowth00laka }}</ref>{{rp|8}} While an astronomer could correct for failure, an astrologer could not. An astrologer could only explain away failure but could not revise the astrological [[hypothesis]] in a meaningful way. As such, to Kuhn, even if the stars could influence the path of humans through life, astrology is not scientific.<ref name="Kuhn-1970" />{{rp|8}}

The philosopher [[Paul Thagard]] asserts that astrology cannot be regarded as falsified in this sense until it has been replaced with a successor. In the case of predicting behaviour, psychology is the alternative.<ref name="Thagard-1978" />{{rp|228}} To Thagard a further criterion of demarcation of science from pseudoscience is that the state-of-the-art must progress and that the community of researchers should be attempting to compare the current theory to alternatives, and not be "selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."<ref name="Thagard-1978" />{{rp|227–228}} Progress is defined here as explaining new phenomena and solving existing problems, yet astrology has failed to progress having only changed little in nearly 2000 years.<ref name="Thagard-1978" />{{rp|228}}<ref name="Hurley-2005" />{{rp|549}} To Thagard, astrologers are acting as though engaged in [[normal science]] believing that the foundations of astrology were well established despite the "many unsolved problems", and in the face of better alternative theories (psychology). For these reasons Thagard views astrology as pseudoscience.<ref name="Thagard-1978" /><ref name="Hurley-2005">{{cite book |last=Hurley|first=Patrick|title=A concise introduction to logic |year=2005 |publisher=Wadsworth |location=Belmont, Calif.|isbn=978-0-534-58505-1|edition=9th}}</ref>{{rp|228}}

For the philosopher Edward W. James, astrology is irrational not because of the numerous problems with mechanisms and falsification due to experiments, but because an analysis of the astrological literature shows that it is infused with fallacious logic and poor reasoning.<ref name="James-1982" />{{rp|34}}

{{blockquote|What if throughout astrological writings we meet little appreciation of coherence, blatant insensitivity to evidence, no sense of a hierarchy of reasons, slight command over the contextual force of critieria, stubborn unwillingness to pursue an argument where it leads, stark naivete concerning the efficacy of explanation and so on? In that case, I think, we are perfectly justified in rejecting astrology as irrational.&nbsp;... Astrology simply fails to meet the multifarious demands of legitimate reasoning.|Edward W. James<ref name="James-1982">{{cite book|last=James|first=Edward W.|title=Philosophy of science and the occult.|year=1982|publisher=State University of New York Press|location=Albany|isbn=978-0-87395-572-0|editor=Patrick Grim}}</ref>{{rp|34}}|title=|source=}}

=== Effectiveness ===

Astrology has not demonstrated its effectiveness in [[Experiment|controlled studies]] and has no scientific validity.{{sfn|Bennett|2007|p=85}}{{sfn|Zarka|2011}} Where it has made [[falsifiable]] predictions under [[Scientific control|controlled conditions]], they have been falsified.{{sfn|Zarka|2011|p=424}} One famous experiment included 28 astrologers who were asked to match over a hundred natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the [[California Psychological Inventory]] (CPI) questionnaire.<ref>{{cite web |last=Muller |first=Richard |title=Web site of Richard A. Muller, Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley |access-date=2 August 2011 |year=2010 |url=http://muller.lbl.gov/homepage.html |archive-date=12 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312032922/http://muller.lbl.gov/homepage.html |url-status=live }}''My former student Shawn Carlson published in Nature magazine the definitive scientific test of Astrology.''<br />{{cite web |last=Maddox |first=Sir John |title=John Maddox, editor of the science journal Nature, commenting on Carlson's test |year=1995 |access-date=2 August 2011 |url=http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120912144554/http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/astrology.html |archive-date=12 September 2012 |df=dmy }} ''"...&nbsp;a perfectly convincing and lasting demonstration."''</ref><ref name="Smith-2010">{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Jonathan C. |title=Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit |year=2010 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |location=Malden, MA|isbn=978-1-4051-8123-5}}</ref> The [[Blind experiment#Double-blind trials|double-blind]] experimental protocol used in this study was agreed upon by a group of physicists and a group of astrologers{{sfn|Zarka|2011}} nominated by the [[National Council for Geocosmic Research]], who advised the experimenters, helped ensure that the test was fair<ref name="Carlson-1985"/>{{rp|420;}}<ref name="Smith-2010" />{{rp|117}} and helped draw the central proposition of [[natal astrology]] to be tested.<ref name="Carlson-1985" />{{rp|419}} They also chose 26 out of the 28 astrologers for the tests (two more volunteered afterwards).<ref name="Carlson-1985"/>{{rp|420}} The study, published in [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']] in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."<ref name="Carlson-1985" />

In 1955, the astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin stated that though he had failed to find evidence that supported indicators like [[Astrological signs|zodiacal signs]] and [[Astrological aspects|planetary aspects]] in astrology, he did find positive correlations between the [[Diurnal motion|diurnal positions]] of some [[Planets in astrology|planets]] and success in professions that astrology traditionally associates with those planets.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Pont |first=Graham |title=Philosophy and Science of Music in Ancient Greece |journal=Nexus Network Journal |year=2004 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=17–29 |doi=10.1007/s00004-004-0003-x|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Gauquelin |first=Michel |title=L'influence des astres: étude critique et expérimentale |year=1955 |publisher=Éditions du Dauphin |location=Paris |lang=fr}}</ref> The best-known of Gauquelin's findings is based on the positions of Mars in the [[natal chart]]s of successful athletes and became known as the ''[[Mars effect]]''.<ref name="Carroll-2003">{{cite book |last=Carroll|first=Robert Todd|title=The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions |year=2003 |publisher=Wiley |location=Hoboken, NJ |isbn=978-0-471-27242-7}}</ref>{{rp|213}} A study conducted by seven French scientists attempted to replicate the claim, but found no statistical evidence.<ref name="Carroll-2003" />{{rp|213–214}} They attributed the effect to selective bias on Gauquelin's part, accusing him of attempting to persuade them to add or delete names from their study.<ref>{{cite book |last=Benski |first=Claude|others=with a commentary by [[Jan Willem Nienhuys]] |title=The "Mars Effect: A French Test of over 1,000 Sports Champions |year=1995 |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, NY |isbn=978-0-87975-988-9|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

Geoffrey Dean has suggested that the effect may be caused by self-reporting of birth dates by parents rather than any issue with the study by Gauquelin. The suggestion is that a small subset of the parents may have had changed birth times to be consistent with better astrological charts for a related profession.  The number of births under astrologically undesirable conditions was also lower, indicating that parents choose dates and times to suit their beliefs. The sample group was taken from a time where belief in astrology was more common. Gauquelin had failed to find the Mars effect in more recent populations, where a nurse or doctor recorded the birth information.<ref name="Smith-2010"/>{{rp|116}}

Dean, a scientist and former astrologer, and psychologist Ivan Kelly conducted a large scale scientific test that involved more than one hundred [[cognitive]], [[behavioural]], [[physiology|physical]], and other variables—but found no support for astrology.<ref>{{cite news |last=Matthews |first=Robert |title=Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220111/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html |archive-date=11 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=13 July 2012 |newspaper=The Telegraph |date=17 August 2003 |location=London}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="Dean-2003" /> Furthermore, a [[meta-analysis]] pooled 40 studies that involved 700 astrologers and over 1,000 birth charts. Ten of the tests—which involved 300 participants—had the astrologers pick the correct chart interpretation out of a number of others that were not the astrologically correct chart interpretation (usually three to five others). When date and other obvious clues were removed, no significant results suggested there was any preferred chart.<ref name="Dean-2003">{{cite journal |title=Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi? |last1=Dean |first1=G. |last2=Kelly |first2=I. W. |journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies |year=2003 |volume=10 |issue=6–7 |pages=175–198}}<!--p. 190--></ref>

=== Lack of mechanisms and consistency ===

Testing the validity of astrology can be difficult, because there is no consensus amongst astrologers as to what astrology is or what it can predict.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=Jeffrey O. |title=The Cosmic Perspective |url=https://archive.org/details/astronomymediawo04lopr |url-access=registration |year=2007 |publisher=Pearson/Addison-Wesley |location=San Francisco |isbn=978-0-8053-9283-8 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/astronomymediawo04lopr/page/82 82–84] |edition=4th}}</ref> Most professional astrologers are paid to predict the future or describe a person's personality and life, but most horoscopes only make vague untestable statements that can apply to almost anyone.{{sfn|Bennett|2007}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Eysenck |first1=H. J. |last2=Nias |first2=D. K. B. |title=Astrology: Science or Superstition? |year=1982 |publisher=St. Martin's Press |isbn=978-0-312-05806-7 |page=83}}</ref>

Many astrologers believe that astrology is scientific,<ref name="Chris-2012">{{cite news |last=Chris |first=French |title=Astrologers and other inhabitants of parallel universes |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/07/astrologers-parallel-universes |work=The Guardian |date=7 February 2012 |access-date=8 July 2012 |location=London |archive-date=28 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128233226/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/07/astrologers-parallel-universes |url-status=live }}</ref> while some have proposed conventional [[Causality|causal agents]] such as [[electromagnetism]] and [[gravity]].<ref name="Chris-2012"/> Scientists reject these mechanisms as implausible<ref name="Chris-2012" /> since, for example, the magnetic field, when measured from Earth, of a large but distant planet such as Jupiter is far smaller than that produced by ordinary household appliances.<ref>{{cite book |editor-first=Michael |editor-last=Shermer |title=The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience |year=2002 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, Cal. |isbn=978-1-57607-653-8 |page=241}}</ref>

Western astrology has taken the earth's [[Precession#Axial precession (precession of the equinoxes)|axial precession (also called precession of the equinoxes)]] into account since Ptolemy's ''[[Almagest]]'', so the "first point of Aries", the start of the astrological year, continually moves against the background of the stars.<ref>{{cite book |last=Tester | first= S. J. | title=A History of Western Astrology | year=1987 | publisher=Boydell Press |isbn=978-0-85115-255-4 |page=161}}</ref> The tropical zodiac has no connection to the stars; tropical astrologers distinguish the constellations from their historically associated [[Astrological sign|sign]], thereby avoiding complications involving precession.<ref name="Charpak-2004" /> Charpak and Broch, noting this, referred to astrology based on the tropical zodiac as being "...empty boxes that have nothing to do with anything and are devoid of any consistency or correspondence with the stars."<ref name="Charpak-2004"/> Sole use of the tropical zodiac is inconsistent with references made, by the same astrologers, to the [[Age of Aquarius]], which depends on when the vernal point enters the constellation of Aquarius.{{sfn|Zarka|2011}}

Astrologers usually have only a small knowledge of astronomy, and often do not take into account basic principles—such as the precession of the equinoxes, which changes the position of the sun with time. They commented on the example of [[Élizabeth Teissier]], who wrote that, "The sun ends up in the same place in the sky on the same date each year", as the basis for the idea that two people with the same birthday, but a number of years apart, should be under the same planetary influence. Charpak and Broch noted that, "There is a difference of about twenty-two thousand miles between Earth's location on any specific date in two successive years", and that thus they should not be under the same influence according to astrology. Over a 40-year period there would be a difference greater than 780,000 miles.<ref name="Charpak-2004">{{cite book |last1=Charpak |first1=Georges |last2=Broch |first2=Henri |year=2004 |orig-date=2002 |title=Debunked!: ESP, Telekinesis, and Other Pseudoscience |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DpnWcMzeh8oC&pg=PA6 |others=Translated by Bart K. Holland |location=Baltimore |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0-8018-7867-1 |at="Astrology in a Vacuum", pp. 6–7}}</ref>

=== Reception in the social sciences ===

The general consensus of astronomers and other natural scientists is that astrology is a pseudoscience which carries no predictive capability, with many philosophers of science considering it a "paradigm or prime example of pseudoscience."<ref>{{cite book | last=Grim | first=Patrick | title=Philosophy of Science and the Occult | publisher=State University of New York Press | publication-place=Albany | date=1990 | isbn=0-7914-0204-5 | oclc=21196067 |page=15}}</ref> Some scholars in the social sciences have cautioned against categorizing astrology, especially ancient astrology, as "just" a pseudoscience or projecting the distinction backwards into the past.<ref>{{cite book | last=Beck | first=Roger | title=A Brief History of Ancient Astrology | publisher=Blackwell Pub | publication-place=Malden, Massachusetts | date=2007 | isbn=978-0-470-77377-2 | oclc=214281257}}</ref> Thagard, while demarcating it as a pseudoscience, notes that astrology "should be judged as not pseudoscientific in classical or Renaissance times...Only when the historical and social aspects of science are neglected does it become plausible that pseudoscience is an unchanging category."{{sfn|Thagard|1978}} Historians of science such as Tamsyn Barton, [[Roger Beck]], [[Francesca Rochberg]], and [[Wouter J. Hanegraaff]] argue that such a wholesale description is anachronistic when applied to historical contexts, stressing that astrology was not pseudoscience before the 18th century and the importance of the discipline to the development of medieval science.{{sfn|Barton|1994}}{{sfn|Hanegraaff|2012}}{{sfn|Beck|2007}}<ref>{{cite book | last=Rochberg | first=Francesca | editor-first1=Paul T. | editor-first2=John | editor-last1=Keyser | editor-last2=Scarborough | title=Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World | chapter=Astral Sciences of Ancient Mesopotamia | publisher=Oxford University Press | date=2018-07-10 | pages=24–34 | doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.62| isbn=978-0-19-973414-6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Taub | first=Liba | title=The Rehabilitation of Wretched Subjects | journal=Early Science and Medicine | publisher=Brill | volume=2 | issue=1 | year=1997 | issn=1383-7427 | doi=10.1163/157338297x00023 | pages=74–87| pmid=11618896 }}</ref> R. J. Hakinson writes in the context of [[Hellenistic astrology]] that "the belief in the possibility of [astrology] was, at least some of the time, the result of careful reflection on the nature and structure of the universe."<ref>{{cite journal | last=Hankinson | first=R.J. | title=Stoicism, Science and Divination | journal=Apeiron | publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH | volume=21 | issue=2 | year=1988 | issn=2156-7093 | doi=10.1515/apeiron.1988.21.2.123 | page=| s2cid=170134327 }}</ref>

[[Nicholas Campion]], both an astrologer and academic historian of astrology, argues that [[Cultural astronomy|Indigenous astronomy]] is largely used as a synonym for astrology in academia, and that modern Indian and Western astrology are better understood as modes of cultural astronomy or [[ethnoastronomy]].<ref>{{cite book | last=Campion | first=Nicholas | title=Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy | chapter=Astrology as Cultural Astronomy | publisher=Springer New York | publication-place=New York, NY | date=2014-07-07 | pages=103–116 | doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_16| isbn=978-1-4614-6140-1}}</ref> Roy Willis and [[Patrick Curry]] draw a distinction between propositional ''[[Wiktionary:ἐπιστήμη|episteme]]'' and metaphoric ''[[Wiktionary:μῆτις|metis]]'' in the ancient world, identifying astrology with the latter and noting that the central concern of astrology "is not knowledge (factual, let alone scientific) but {{em|wisdom}} (ethical, spiritual and pragmatic)".<ref>{{cite book | last1=Willis | first1=Roy | last2=Curry | first2=Patrick | title=Astrology, Science and Culture | publisher=Routledge | date=2020-05-19 | isbn=978-1-003-08472-3 | doi=10.4324/9781003084723| s2cid=242002348 }}</ref> Similarly, historian of science Justin Niermeier-Dohoney writes that astrology was "more than simply a science of prediction using the stars and comprised a vast body of beliefs, knowledge, and practices with the overarching theme of understanding the relationship between humanity and the rest of the cosmos through an interpretation of stellar, solar, lunar, and planetary movement." Scholars such as [[Assyriologist]] Matthew Rutz have begun using the term "astral knowledge" rather than astrology "to better describe a category of beliefs and practices much broader than the term 'astrology' can capture."<ref>{{cite journal | last=Niermeier-Dohoney | first=Justin | title=Sapiens Dominabitur Astris: A Diachronic Survey of a Ubiquitous Astrological Phrase | journal=Humanities | publisher=MDPI AG | volume=10 | issue=4 | date=2021-11-02 | issn=2076-0787 | doi=10.3390/h10040117 | page=117| doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title=The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge in the Ancient World | chapter=Astral Knowledge in an International Age: Transmission of the Cuneiform Tradition, ca. 1500–1000 B.C. | publisher=BRILL | date=2016-01-01 | doi=10.1163/9789004315631_004 | pages=18–54| isbn=978-90-04-31563-1 | last1=Rutz | first1=Matthew T. }}</ref>