The Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem (1493, published posthumously 1496) by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) has been a controversial work since the manuscript's circulation in the Renaissance. Contemporary authors of Pico, such as Lucio Bellanti (d. 1499) and Giovanni Pontano (1426–1503), who opposed his arguments against astrology, doubted the authenticity of the Disputationes because of their apparent contradiction with the initial ideas of their author. Since then, the suspicion that the work was written by Pico under the strong influence of Savonarola (1452–98) or altered by Gianfrancesco Pico (1469–1533) has accompanied its reception.

In Debating the Stars in the Italian Renaissance, Ovanes Akopyan proposes a study of the Disputationes that dispels this suspicion and allows an approach to this work of Pico as a product of his intellectual development. To show this, Akopyan argues first (chapter 2) that between Pico's pre-Roman dispute writings—the Commento alla Canzione d'amore (1486), the Oratio de hominis dignitate (1486), the Conclusiones (1486)—and those written after Pico's return to Florence—the Heptaplus (1489) and the Expositiones in Psalmos (1489)—there is an evolution of Pico's thought. He went from a vision of astrology, as an element of Prisca Theologia, to the search for conciliation of the idea of Neoplatonic light with the natural philosophy of Aristotle. It was revealed to him as highly problematic and became the precedent for De Ente et Uno (1491) and the Disputationes.

In the next chapter, Akopyan addresses the analysis of the first book of Disputationes, studying the sources that Pico uses to demonstrate that the astrological tradition has distorted the principles of astrology without disqualifying pagan philosophy. This suggests a position properly belonging to Pico, in contrast with that of Gianfrancesco and Savonarola, who disqualify the totality of pagan philosophy. In addition, it shows a continuity with Pico's method in De Ente et Uno of seeking to relocate the classical sources to their original meaning.

Akopyan then discusses the twelfth book of Disputationes (chapter 4), the most problematic in terms of its authenticity because of the quality of the writing and some statements that contradict claims made in the first book. After doing a careful review of these statements, he argues that despite the evidence against Pico's authorship of the chapter, there are no signs indicating any distortion of what appears to be a draft written by Pico himself.

His next step is to study the arguments developed in the Disputationes against Ptolemy's authority as an astrologer and the astrological tradition (chapter 5). Here he stops to look at how Pico debates the incompatibility of astrology with philosophy and religion, where he observes again that Pico maintains a position consistent with his own argumentative and reflective methods and does not share arguments that will later be put forward by Gianfrancesco and Savonarola in their treatises. Finally, he looks (in chapter 6) at how Pico interprets the influence of the sun and the moon over the earth and argues that this is a development of the concerns already expressed before in the Heptaplus and the Expositiones, which seek resolution within the framework of natural philosophy.

The book's last section is devoted to the pro and contra reception of the Disputationes among Pico's contemporaries. A study of the works of Savonarola (chapter 7) and Gianfrancesco Pico (chapter 8) allows Akopyan to establish that they have substantive differences with Pico's position and that there is also evidence that they were influenced by the Disputationes, not vice versa. On the other hand, an analysis of the works of Lucio Bellanti, Giovani Pontano, and Francesco Zorzi (chapters 10, 11, and 12) serves to contrast Pico's ideas and to broaden our view of the debate over astrology at the time, but also to identify in detail the context in which the arguments that question the authorship of the Disputationes arise.

Debating the Stars undoubtedly opens a new horizon to understanding Pico's Disputationes as a part of his greater intellectual enterprise. It opens further questions on how his ideas evolved and his philosophical relation to Savonarola and Gianfrancesco. As Akopyan suggests, Pico was a leading philosopher, not a mere follower of Savonarola's ideas.