[size=3][color=#6633FF]
While it's understandable that most laypersons don't and can't understand the intricate nuances of astrology, it's infuriating when those who actually know nothing about it attempt to discredit it. You're mimicing what you've heard others say. Even if some of those others are 'scientists,' even scientists have been known to be wrong. Look at Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, which is even now being disproved by the String/Super String/M Theory.
Mankind does NOT have all the answers to everything in existence. Even the laws that govern the 'universe' as we know it, scientists now realize, may be more localized than we, at first, believed. There may BE no law of gravity (for instance) in another part of our universe (in fact, some research indicates that this very well may be the case). And the fact that there are other dimensions -- Multiverses -- which operate on different 'laws' should be enough to tell most of you that there's a very REAL chance that astrology works off of one of those same types of laws.
There is so much more to astrology than most people are even aware. And it most certainly is QUITE accurate. This, I've been able to verify through data collection of numerous astrological calculations on numerous individuals over the years.
I am an astrologer and have been for over 25 years. What's so exasperating about all these so-called 'studies' that are conducted on astrology and its validity, is the fact that the 'scientists' (and I use that term very loosely) who have conducted the studies, not only focus on ONE aspect of astrology (and it's always the same one: Sun Sign astrology), but, in general, only on one or two studies which have been conducted using a minimal number of control subjects and which give precious little source information, or its actual efficacy.
I have verified this for myself; I am currently back in college in order to obtain my PsyD in Counseling Psychology and have encountered this same prejudice even with psychologists and other scientists and academicians. While they espouse following empirical methods, they rarely follow these came criteria themselves. In fact, their dialogue with their students actually runs something like this:
======================
STUDENT: Why does science accept electricity without knowing what it is, professor?
PROFESSOR: Because we have proved by its demonstrable effects that it exists, my boy.
STUDENT: Science also accepts magnetism without knowing exactly what it is, doesn't it, professor?
PROFESSOR: Yes, although we do not know whether it is force, fluid or quality - we have proved it by its demonstrable effects.
STUDENT: And Life itself, professor - science says it doesn't know its cause, but it recognizes its existence, doesn't it?
PROFESSOR: Of course! Anything that has a demonstrable effect must be accepted.
STUDENT: Then the demonstrable effects of astrology are entitled to serious scientific consideration, aren't they professor?
PROFESSOR: Certainly not! Science will not accept astrology on the basis of mere demonstrable effects!
======================
A bit contradictory, wouldn't you say? There most certainly ARE demonstrable effects, just as there are with electricity, magnetism and life -- all intangible substances we can not see with our physical eyes, and yet whose 'demonstrable effects' we CAN see, and which we know are there.
Another glaring red flag is that NONE of the so-called studies were conducted by someone who knows anything ABOUT astrology. There are numerous forms of astrology. It is so detailed and complex that it takes an ASTROLOGER years (if ever!) to master any one form.
However, since we're using only 'two' studies which debunk astrology, I will reference 'two' different scientific sources which have PROVEN it's efficacy: 1) the astronomer Percy Seymour, one of Britain's leading astronomers, wrote of its validity in his book,
Astrology, the Evidence of Science. Another source is the voluminous studies of the French psychologist, Michel Gauquelin. Two more excellent sources of validating information come from
Astro Databank and from
Avalon School of Astrology, among other sources. These aren't the only validating sources, however.
But do the scientists who have attempted to disprove astrology reference the validating studies? Of course not. Because if they did it would disprove their own blather.
Because of this issue, I am currently working on what may well turn out to be, at least, a major psychology paper which proves the efficacy of astrology, if not my dissertation. If you're interested in learning more about astrology, please visit my website at:
Starwolf Astrology ServicesAnd just for the record, as far as Sun Sign astrology is concerned, it's not that it's not accurate; the problem is that only ONE sign or planet (for simplicity, the sun is considered a planet in astrology) is used, in this case the Sun. However, our natal charts include all the planets in the solar system, including the moon and a couple asteroids. Therefore, when calculating a chart, much MUCH more is taken into consideration than just the Sun. The fact is, our Rising Sign or Ascendant and our Moon sign can significantly modify or offset the effects of the Sun sign, as can the signs in which our Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto and Chiron may fall.
If one is going to argue about the pros and/or cons of an issue, at least study it so that you do, indeed, know whereof you speak.
Many Blessings,
Kat Starwolf
Starwolf Astrology Services
One of the largest studies of the possible link between human traits and astrology found little, if any, connection between the traditional sun signs of the zodiac and characteristics of individuals. The study adds to the growing body of evidence that there is no scientific basis for star signs, such as Aries, Taurus and so on. These signs are based on the place of the sun in relation to the date of birth of the subject. The researchers, however, leave open the question as to whether other, more detailed and personal forms of astrology hold any validity. "When considering the current scientific standing with respect to sun signs, it becomes clear that there is little or no truth in sun signs," said Peter Hartmann, who led the study, which will be published in next month's Personality and Individual Differences journal. 
View: Full Article | Source: Discovery Channel
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Astrology is amazing and I think that article is bulls***.....I've been studying Astrology for over a year now and its relivancy is beautiful on how almost perfect it is. HOw much do you skeptics actually know about this thousands of year old subject? Its not just about the SUN signs....BLAH ya'll can believe what ya want but this article has no real proof besides sum IQ crap and sum blabbling about sum science proof they dont even explain...
