Editing Astrology (section)

==== Ancient objections ====

[[File:M. Tullius Cicero, Capitoline Museum, Rome.jpg|thumb|upright|The Roman orator [[Cicero]] objected to astrology.]]

The [[Hellenistic philosophy|Hellenistic]] schools of [[philosophical skepticism]] criticized astrology, alongside all other beliefs.<ref>Diogenes Laërtius 9:80–88</ref> Criticism of astrology by [[Academic skepticism|academic skeptics]] such as [[Carneades]],{{sfn|Hughes|2004|p=87}} [[Cicero]],{{sfn|Fernandez-Beanato|2020}} and [[Favorinus]];{{sfn|Long|2005|page=184}} [[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonists]] such as [[Sextus Empiricus]];{{sfn|Long|2005|page=186}} and [[neoplatonist]]s such as [[Plotinus]],<ref>{{cite book | last=Long | first=A. A. | title=Science and Speculation. Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=2005 |<!--165–191-->page=174 |editor1=Barnes, Jonathan |editor2=Brunschwig, J. | chapter=6: Astrology: arguments pro and contra |isbn=978-0-521-02218-7}}</ref>{{sfn|Long|2005|page=174}} has been preserved.

[[Carneades]] argued that belief in fate denies [[free will]] and [[morality]]; that people born at different times can all die in the same accident or battle; and that contrary to uniform influences from the stars, tribes and cultures are all different.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hughes |first=Richard |title=Lament, Death, and Destiny |publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang]] |year=2004 |page=87}}</ref>

[[Cicero]], in ''[[De Divinatione]]'', leveled a critique of astrology that some modern philosophers consider to be the first working definition of [[pseudoscience]] and the answer to the [[demarcation problem]].{{sfn|Fernandez-Beanato|2020}} The philosopher of science [[Massimo Pigliucci]], building on the work of the historian of science, Damien Fernandez-Beanato, argues that Cicero outlined a "convincing distinction between astrology and astronomy that remains valid in the twenty-first century."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |date=January–February 2024 |title=Pseudoscience:An Ancient Problem |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=18, 19}}</ref> [[Cicero]] stated the twins objection (that with close birth times, personal outcomes can be very different), later developed by [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]].{{sfn|Long|2005|page=173}} He argued that since the other planets are much more distant from the Earth than the Moon, they could have only very tiny influence compared to the Moon's.{{sfn|Long|2005|pages=173–174}} He also argued that if astrology explains everything about a person's fate, then it wrongly ignores the visible effect of inherited ability and parenting, changes in health worked by medicine, or the effects of the weather on people.{{sfn|Long|2005|page=177}} The historian Stefano Rapisarda notes that the text is formally "equally balanced between ''pro'' and ''contra'', and no final or definite answer is given."<ref>{{cite book |last=Rapisarda |first=Stefano |title=Prognostication in the Medieval World |chapter=Traditions and Practices in the Medieval Western Christian World |publisher=De Gruyter |date=2020-11-09 |isbn=978-3-11-049977-3 |doi=10.1515/9783110499773-021 |pages=429–445}}</ref>

[[Favorinus]] argued that it was absurd to imagine that stars and planets would affect human bodies in the same way as they affect the tides, and equally absurd that small motions in the heavens cause large changes in people's fates.{{sfn|Long|2005|page=184}}

[[Sextus Empiricus]] argued that it was absurd to link human attributes with myths about the signs of the zodiac, and wrote an entire book, ''[[Against the Astrologers]]'' (Πρὸς ἀστρολόγους, ''Pros astrologous''), compiling arguments against astrology. ''Against the Astrologers'' was the fifth section of a larger work arguing against philosophical and scientific inquiry in general, ''Against the Professors'' (Πρὸς μαθηματικούς, ''Pros mathematikous'').{{sfn|Long|2005|page=186}}

[[Plotinus]], a [[neoplatonist]], had a lasting interest in astrology, including the question of how the world of humans could be affected by the stars, and (if so) whether astrology could predict events on Earth.<ref>{{cite book |last=Adamson |first=Peter |title=Oxford Studies In Ancient Philosophy |chapter=Plotinus On Astrology |publisher=Oxford University PressOxford |date=6 November 2008 |isbn=978-0-19-955779-0 |doi=10.1093/oso/9780199557790.003.0009 |pages=265–292}}</ref> He argued that since the fixed stars are much more distant than the planets, it is laughable to imagine the planets' effect on human affairs should depend on their position with respect to the zodiac. He also argues that the interpretation of the Moon's [[conjunction (astronomy)|conjunction]] with a planet as good when the moon is full, but bad when the moon is waning, is clearly wrong, as from the Moon's point of view, half of its surface is always in sunlight; and from the planet's point of view, waning should be better, as then the planet sees some light from the Moon, but when the Moon is full to us, it is dark, and therefore bad, on the side facing the planet in question.{{sfn|Long|2005|page=174}}