Tag Archives: skeptics

“The Problem with Astrology”

The latest uninspired astro critique is from Slate magazine.  A Brazilian science journalist, plugging his forthcoming book about why astrology is bad for you, uses a cruel attack on Linda Goodman (who died over 30 years ago) to make his point.  When Linda’s daughter committed suicide, she refused to accept it (her Sun trined Neptune in the 5th house).  And snatching at Andrew Ross Sorkin’s regurgitations of even older accusations against Evangeline Adams (wherein she predicted the 1929 market would go up, which did), he illogically concludes that “Unwarranted beliefs – those without basis in reality, like astrology – are dangerous.”  Huh?

The author has done some good historical research, but his one-sided arguments are familiar.  He made up his mind long before his reporting, and clearly hasn’t learned anything about the practice of astrology, all while touting the scientific rigor that astrology lacks.  I can no longer access the article without signing up, but you may barf to read it anyway.

Anti-astrology zealots seem united in both their prejudice and lack of creativity.  They can’t find anything positive to say about their own topics, so choose to beat down something  they don’t understand.  But astrology does get attention, and he’s capitalizing on its popularity, as Sorkin did.

https://slate.com/technology/2026/05/astrology-science-problem-linda-goodman.html

 

Wikipedia’s Bias

The Astrology News Service critiqued Wikipedia a few years ago, wondering, Is Wikipedia Concept Fatally Flawed? Based on my personal experience, it is. Wikipedia alleges neutrality. But the ANS article describes how organized skeptics are waging a campaign to edit and delete opposing points of view.

My two biographies of Evangeline Adams used to be listed as sources on her Wikipedia entry. These have now been removed. I find this especially irksome since one of the main things I tried to do with the books is to substantiate Adams’ forecasts with specific, documented and published sources. I believe I was able to do that, and readers can make up their own minds based on the facts. But the skeptical “Thought Police” are so defensive that they can’t even tolerate references to any research that might support astrology.

Instead, the Wikipedia article now only has citations against Adams’ expertise. One simply quotes “skeptics.” The other, from an investment analyst, calls Adams an “obvious quack.”

Those of us who believe in astrology may want to scream, but these people are preaching to the converted. Information on astrology on the Internet only keeps expanding, because so many people want it. Why are skeptics so upset? What’s the big deal? Who really cares what someone else believes? I’m disturbed by the biased Wikipedia edits because organized groups are intent on influencing the public. That’s how we got Prohibition in the U.S. – through organized effort, not popular choice. And we all know how that worked out.