bobad, all scientific studies done on astrology to date - including that one - are next to useless, becayse they based on a false premise and/or cannot do justice to the vast number of variables astrology presents - including the wide range of opinions/interpretations within the field of astrology itself.

Here's an excerpt from the article "Astrology as Religion" at the same link. The article offers a valuable first-hand account of the difficulties facing anyone who attempts an honest, empirical investigation of astrology, and closes with some lucid if sobering concerns re the continuing scientific investigation of astrology:


"The spiritual dimension of astrology -- David Hamblin

From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association, spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour. Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology. He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence ....

... It seems to me that the reason why many astrologers are reluctant to take part in research is that they expect, and fear, that the research would come up with negative results. When I first came into astrology from an academic background I was very keen on research, and I spent a great deal of time doing little research projects on my own, trying to prove (to my own satisfaction) a correlation between particular astrological factors and particular personality traits or occupational characteristics. The pattern was always the same: for the first fifty (or maybe a hundred) charts I would seem to be coming up with very exciting results, but as I increased the size of the sample the effect would fade away, until by the time I had looked at (say) two hundred charts there would be no correlation whatsoever.

After many experiences of this kind, I began to find astrological research a pretty depressing activity, and my enthusiasm for it became blunted. And, in the end, my enthusiasm for astrology became blunted also. For a long time I had tried to convince myself that astrology was valid in spite of the lack of research evidence, and that the need was for better tests. If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way.

... After all, what would happen to astrology if it was proved beyond doubt that there is a connection between planetary positions at a particular time and events on Earth occurring at the same time? It would be taken over, not only by science, but by politics and big business. It would become part of the "system" from which so many of us long to escape. It would do great harm, because of the way in which it would be used by unscrupulous people in search of profit and power. It would lose its magic and its capacity to inspire.

How much better that it should remain one of those things (like life after death) that are never proved but remain tantalizingly possible, elusive, just out of reach, offering glimpses of a universe that lies beyond our ordinary experience."

Hear, hear!