| Revision as of 23:54, 2 April 2012 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,556,598 editsm Dating maintenance tags: {{Afd-mergeto}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:43, 3 April 2012 edit undoLuckyLouie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,101 edits Merge material to History_of_astrology#Mundane_astrologyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{afd-mergeto|Astrology|Mundane astrology|02 April 2012|date=April 2012}} | |||
| {{Notability|date=March 2012}} | |||
| {{Astrology}} | |||
| '''Mundane astrology''' is the application of ] to world affairs and world events, taking its name from the ] word ''mundus'', meaning ''"the ]"''. Mundane astrology is widely believed by ] to be the most ] branch of astrology.<ref>{{cite book|title=From the Omens of Babylon: Astrology and Ancient Mesopotamia|author=Michael Baigent|publisher=Arkana|year=1994}}</ref> Astrological practices of divination and planetary interpretation have been used for millennia to answer political questions. It was, however, only with the gradual emergence of ] from the sixth century B.C. that astrology developed into two distinct branches, mundane astrology and natal astrology.<ref>{{cite book|title=Mundane astrology|author=Michael Baigent, Nicholas Campion and Charles Harvey|publisher=Thorsons|year=1984}}</ref>. | |||
| Contemporary science considers astrology a pseudoscience.<ref>{{Cite news|title=The Real Romance in the Stars |author=Richard Dawkins |publisher=The Independent, December 1995 |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-real-romance-in-the-stars-1527970.html |location=London |date=31 December 1995}}. See also {{cite web|title=Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List |publisher=Astronomical Society of the Pacific |url=http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html}}</ref> It has also been suggested that much of the continued faith in astrology could be ] explained as a matter of ].<ref name="Eysenck">] pp.42-48.</ref> | |||
| Astrology has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its effectiveness in ], according to the American Humanist Society. The group characterised those who continue to have faith in astrology 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>Bart Bok, Paul Kurtz and Lawrence Jerome, "Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists" in ''The Humanist'' September/October, 1975.</ref> One well-documented and referenced paper, for instance, which conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred ], ], ] and other variables, found no support for astrological accuracy.<ref></ref> | |||
| Astrology has been criticized for failing to provide a ] that links the movements of celestial bodies to their purported effects on human behavior. In 1975, amid increasing popular interest in astrology, ''The Humanist'' magazine presented a rebuttal of astrology in a statement put together by ], Lawrence E. Jerome, and ].<ref name="humanist1">, volume 35, no.5 (September/October 1975); pp. 4-6. The statement is reproduced in 'The Strange Case of Astrology' by Paul Feyerabend, published in ] .</ref> The statement, entitled ‘Objections to Astrology’, was signed by 186 astronomers, physicists and leading scientists of the day. They said that there is no scientific foundation for the tenets of astrology and warned the public against accepting astrological advice without question. Their criticism focused on the fact that there was no mechanism whereby astrological effects might occur: | |||
| {{quote|We can see how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets and the far more distant stars. It is simply a mistake to imagine that the forces exerted by stars and planets at the moment of birth can in any way shape our futures.<ref name="humanist2">{{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|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20090318140638/http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/astrology.html|archivedate=2009-03-18}}</ref><ref>{{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=0-87395-572-2|pages=14–18|author=Bok, Bart J.|coauthors=Lawrence E. Jerome, Paul Kurtz|editor=Patrick Grim}}</ref>}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <div class="references-small> | |||
| {{Reflist}}</div> | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| * Nicholas Campion, ''The Book of World Horoscopes'', The Aquarian Press, London, 1988 | |||
| * Stan Barker, ''The Signs of The Times - The Neptune Factor: America's Future and Past as Seen Through Planetary Cycles'', Llewellyn Publications, St Paul, MN USA 1986 | |||
| * E. Alan Meece, ''Horoscope for the New Millennium'', Llewellyn Publications, St Paul MN USA 1997 | |||
| * Dhruva, ''Astrological analysis of Indian Affairs (1947–2050)'', New Delhi: Readworthy Publications (P) Ltd., 2008 (ISBN 9788189973025) | |||
| * "America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope", Regulus Astrology LLC, Princeton, NJ, 2008. (ISBN 9780980185621) | |||
| * Richard Tarnas, ''Cosmos and Psyche'', Intimations of a New World View, New York, 2006 (ISBN 9780670032921) | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Mundane Astrology}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 14:43, 3 April 2012
Redirect to: