A Scientific Explanation And Theory Regarding Why Astrology Works

This post discusses how astrology can work from a scientific and theoretical viewpoint. The article demonstrates how astrology, and other forms of divination are valid, if you can accept certain well-defined assumptions, also discussed and justified here.

Note that this article does not endorse any astrological predictions, or make any claims as to whether any astrologer can, or has been able to make use of astrology, but merely explains why such predictions might, in fact, be valid. Additionally, this article describes the nature how such a system might work, especially with regard to free will.

#

Assumptions:

In order for my theory to work, I need to make and justify three assumptions:

#1. Predetermination exists. The future is immutable.

#2. Any function of time can be represented as a series of frequencies, of variable amplitude and phase, added together to create that function of time.

#3. A mapping function exists that permits any single frequency to be mapped to multiple other frequencies and phases. That mapping function can be determined, and made arbitrarily precise.

#

I will justify each of the assumptions in detail within my next subsequent posts. Before dismissing any of these assumptions (especially the first one) please check out the various posts that follow, where I attempt to show why each of these assumptions is completely reasonable.

The bottom line is this: the future is precisely defined by the past, and a single periodic function (whether it is the hands of a clock, or the position of the planets) can be theoretically used to make arbitrarily accurate predictions about the future, given a proper "mapping" function. FURTHERMORE, if any single system of divination exists, then ALL forms of divination can exist (since one form of divination can precisely predict the outcome of another form of divination.)

The trick of course is to find the precise mapping between past and future events that will actually provide accurate predictions. Although I argue (and believe I prove) below that such a mapping function can actually be constructed (and is by no means impossible) the construction of this mapping function is left for future discussion. (Sorry, you won’t find that here.)

(Continued in next post...)

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Buck Division]

Assumption #1: Predetermination exists. The future is immutable.

Consider a slow motion camera, of arbitrary shutter speed, which records the moment of a car crash. The film can be slowed down to observe the event. At some point, such as a few microseconds right before the crash, it becomes obvious that the crash is not avoidable, even though the crash as not yet occurred. In fact, at some time BEFORE the event you can predict with arbitrary precision approaching 100% the exact moment of the crash in the future.

So, if you can predict the state of something in the future, given a small enough time increment, then you can predict the moment in the future FOLLOWING that first moment, and so on. All it takes is enough precision. Since infinite precision is not possible, it may require a vast amount of precision to predict the outcome of something quite complicated, such as the outcome of a roulette wheel, or the precise moment that someone launches the roulette wheel ball.

The reason that the future appears unknown is merely because there exists vast complexity in most systems, and this complexity is beyond the ability of humans to understand with enough precision to make accurate predictions. In fact, it can be hypothesized that, just as the PAST is 100% immutable, so is the FUTURE.

#

Assumption #2: Any function of time can be represented as a series of frequencies, of variable amplitude and phase, added together to create that function of time.

This assumption requires very little explanation, because it is simply a statement of Fourier’s theorem, which says that any function of time (including a non-periodic function of time) can be decomposed into a series of sine ways of various frequencies, and these frequencies can be used to describe that function with arbitrary precision.

Math students, first faced with Fourier’s theorem, often find this property of time to be highly mysterious. This is mainly due to the poor way that Fourier’s theorem is explained to students. To explain this simply (the way it should be explained): Fourier simply stated that, to measure time, you need to have a function that is periodic, such as a clock, and then count the cycles of that clock until something occurs. This is really the basis of Fourier’s theory, which often confounds students. Fourier proved what is really rather obvious – you need to have a periodic function, such as the movement of clock hands, in order to measure time.

#

Assumption #3: A mapping function exists that permits any single frequency to be mapped to multiple other frequencies and phases.

This should be obvious if you think about it. If you know your watch is five minutes fast, you can still tell the precise time of day by knowing the current time of your watch, and how fast your watch is running. The time delay is known as a “mapping” function, in that it maps the time of your watch to the time of day. (In this case, the “mapping” function is simply to subtract five minutes from the current time.)

In this case, we are mapping one periodic function (the hands of the clock) to another periodic function (the spin of the earth.) Your watch is tuned to be closely synchronous to the earth’s spin, but that is strictly for convenience. The watch could be totally off, and still be mapped to the earth’s spin, the orbit of the moon, the orbit of the planets, etc. You can still determine the precise time of day with an inaccurate watch.

There is one special clarification that requires some further elaboration. Consider that your watch is not running at a constant speed, but is variably changing, i.e. your watch is runs faster some hours, and runs slowly other hours, and this seems random. It becomes more difficult to calculate the precise time, but some function obviously existed (and is immutably frozen in the past) and hence that function can be determined in the future (using Assumption #1 above.)

Note that the above statement is really the only original thought in the entire paper, and forms the crux of my entire theory. I invite any discussion or attack on this, because it may appear circular logic, but since assumption #3 is independent of assumption #1, I suggest that I can use one assumption to justify another. It is a bit complex, but I think it is valid.

#

Notes on Precision

Several times above, I have mentioned “precision”. Let me make clear that the future cannot be predicted “precisely”, but that shouldn’t matter, because the future can be predicted with arbitrary precision.

It is important to note the difference between practicality and impossibility with regard to precision. For example, to place a “Lunar Landing Module” at a certain area on the moon might require the value of PI to be known to 4 decimal places. To place a “Martian Lander” at a certain area of mars might require the value of PI to be known to 12 decimal places. To place an “Andromeda Lander” on a planet in a distant galaxy might require the value of PI to be known to several thousand decimal places or more.

Here is what you have to realize: There is no distance that is too far away that the value of PI no longer works! All it takes is adequate precision. The fact that PI cannot be expressed completely as a “ratio” (which is why it is called “irrational”, independent of any other meaning of that word) has no bearing on its practical use.

Similarly, you can predict the future accurately given enough precision. The more distant into the future, the more precision required. There is no time in the future that is too far away that it can no longer be predicted. In some ways, this is a consequence of a single point of originating time (such as the big bang.) The fact that time behaves in this way seems to obviously support the the "Big Bang" theory, i.e. one source event yields all others.

(Continued in next post…)

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Buck Division]

Conclusions, and the Effects of Free Will

Clearly, astrology is just an attempt to map the future using specific periodic indicators. Although this mapping is obviously not precise, the human mind may very well compensate for the various errors and other factors. For example, looking at a clock that says 3:30 PM, the human mind might accurately report the time as 2:23 PM, knowing that the watch is 7 minutes fast. A particularly adept mind might be able to report the time of 3:30 PM to be 2:23 PM, knowing that the watch loses one minute each hour, and further knowing that the clock was last accurately synchronized at 7:30AM.

So you can see, the skill at making an astrological prediction clearly lies with the astrologer, not necessarily with the perfection of a (probably flawed) mapping system. This is why I stated earlier that I am making no attempt to prove the rules of astrology, but only that astrology as a method of divination CAN WORK! Similarly, I will not dismiss the talents of a skillful and intuitive astrologer (assuming there are any!)

Note above: for any time based prediction to be accurate, the original synchronizing time is very important in order to make a prediction. This clearly is why astrology places such emphasis on the birth date and time of a person when making a forecast – it is simply a way of synchronizing the prediction to an important period of time. (One might assume that it would be sufficient to synchronize the time to be the first birthday, or any other date and time relative to the individual, after making proper adjustments to the astrological map.)

According to this theorem, it is easy to predict something that is not complex. But as complexity increases, it becomes very hard. In other words, the mapping function for highly complex things is much more involved that for simple things. To predict the precise actions of a human being would be extraordinarily difficult. To predict a certain “flavor” of time, separate from free will, might not be difficult at all.

This may be why astrological predictions are often extremely general. Furthermore, it may explain why astrological predictions can easily be refuted by something extraordinarily complicated like the human mind, which aggregates a vast amount of “apparent chance”. What appears to be “human free will” is simply a vast set of effects, based upon highly complex causes.

#

Footnote

What I said at the beginning of this article should be repeated: The trick of making astrology useful is to find the precise mapping between events and their periodic indicators, so that accurate predictions can be made. As I apologized to you earlier, you won't find that mapping in this article. However, one might see that such a set of mapping could be found (and is often found) through statistical analysis and careful adjudication of the statistical results. That would be quite an exercise.

#

You know what? I am aware that this is all very dense! I will be happy to answer all questions or take any comments. If I don’t hear anything back, at least I will have enshrined this info for posterity here at ATS. In that case, I will try to come back and write some final thoughts on this subject.

I consider this to be an important subject, since it deals with many mysteries of life, providing explanations that will be dismissed by many skeptics, but which actually reveal irrefutable truth. Such is the mission statement of this website.

One day, this thread might be the source of some better and perfected explanation. (Maybe not.) Regardless, thanks for reading!

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Buck Division]

(Double post while making final edits.)

I will take this opportunity to reiterate that all comments and questions are welcome. I will attempt to answer all questions and respond to all comments made to this thread.

When responding, please check back later. (In may be a while before I get back with you, but I will be pleased to discuss in depth any post you make here.)

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Buck Division]

An external reviewer gave me this question. I will post it here, along with my answer.

Question: What about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Formulation of this principle smashed classical determinism. So how can there be predeterminism if determinism doesn’t exist? Or are you going to refute quantum mechanics?

The “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” simply states that you cannot observe something without affecting it slightly. It states what we cannot observe, not what cannot exist. It actually makes no comment at all regarding existence of something, only our limits to observation.

en.wikipedia.org...

What makes this important is that, you might imagine you could observe something using more and more gentle techniques, affecting it less and less, without limit. (This is what I was talking about before, regarding practicality and precision.) Unfortunately, since energy exists not as a continuous function, but in discrete “quantum” steps, there comes a point that you can observe something with maximum gentleness, and no less!

So it is not possible to observe something with unlimited precision. Therefore, you might think that this uncertainty might build up to yield an indeterminate future.

To answer, I could simply say that the act of observing something is, in itself, something that is predetermined. Also, although you can’t know about something before you observe it, you can certainly know it after you observe it. Once you observe it, it can’t be unobserved. Such is the nature of the future and the past.

I will go further. In fact, if quantum mechanics is true (and I am amazed sometimes why people are skeptics with regard to paranormal, but willing accept so called “scientific” evidence without challenge) then quantum mechanics actually SUPPORTS my argument regarding predetermination, as follows:

If quantum mechanics is true, then there will exist a moment in time where the universe stops. It will not slow down forever, losing more and more energy; the universe will actually STOP. There will be zero motion, as the last quantum of energy dissipates. (Yeah, this is a hypothesis, but a good one – at least as good as the so called theory of quantum mechanics IMO.) In short, there is a PREDETERMINED final state of the universe.

At that time, which might be trillions of collapses and re-expansions of the Universe, which might be so vast a period of time as to dwarf all other mental concepts -- the entirety of time will resolve itself into a final configuration. Quantum mechanics requires this. From there, you merely need to work backwards to see any moment in time. This is just a statement that the future, just like the past, is immutable.

There is a fated (albeit unknown, but knowable) final resting state of all of existence. Although we might not be able to determine that final state to the quantum level, we can certainly figure out the macro characteristics of that destiny, or so I suppose.

I'm personally really into astrology as a way to understand human psychology. I'm not sure why exactly, but it works. An individuals personal horoscope is determined the exact moment they're born. Numerology is another one I find to be pretty accurate at describing people. As for making predictions I've never really tried it much. I think for predictions it helps if you're naturally gifted.

No scientists have found any evidence to support it. It would be very useful to humanity to have such information, yet people can't find it. That suggests, to me at least, that it's bunk.

When I was 21, I visited my aunt, who had done astrology charts for about 30 years. I told her I didn't believe in it. She replied, "Let me do your chart and I'll prove it to you." Now, I will add that she didn't know me very well, hadn't seen me in 8 years or so. Well, she did my chart. I was amazed. She was absolutely right on. She told me things about the past and when they happened - all of that was 100% correct; these were things she'd have no way of knowing, like what hapened to me before I was adopted. She also gave me some forecasts for the future; ALL of which came to pass. THen shse got out the charts for other relatives - these were all accurate as well.
What she told me is that a chart is like a road map. There is no guarantee that things will happen exactly the way they are in your chart, because of human free will. It's simply a road map that tells you what kinds of energy/events will probably manifest in your life. Of course, if you know about it ahead of time, you are free to try to avoid something bad happening to you. The chart is not set in stone, but merely is an indicator of what events you will have to deal with in the future. I have done alot of transformative work on myself and my birth chart doesn't resemble me as much as it did 30 years ago, for example.
So, my point is that predetermination doesn't play a part in astrology. Personally, I don't believe in predeterminism, I believe humans have choices. Those choices affect our chart.
Astrology should be used for forecasting, which tells you the probabilities of something happening. They aren't predictions, so much as probabilties, so you know what to avoid.

Originally posted by MissInformation
I'm personally really into astrology as a way to understand human psychology...Numerology is another one I find to be pretty accurate at describing people.

Thanks for the post, Missi!

Our psyche is linked into a larger mystery, which is the puzzle of why we even exist! It seems amazing to me that existence in this universe is even possible -- for anything at all. Now, compound that mystery with the strangeness of sentient thought in that universe. There does seem to be some sort of plan at work that creates linkages between things, and natural orders.

Specifically to your points: if astrology can work, then numerology can also work. They would be linked by the fact that you could (theoretically) predict the numerology of an individual or an event through astrology. What it would require is some roadmap between the two – perhaps some formula.

Other forms of divination, I Ching, Tarot, Stichomancy, palmistry, as well as any undiscovered forms of divination -- all could be predicted from astrology, and could all be used to predict astrological outcomes.

One form of divination would automatically open the door to the theoretical capability for ANY other form of divination. So it seems to me.

I appreciate the comment, thanks!

Originally posted by forestlady
There is no guarantee that things will happen exactly the way they are in your chart, because of human free will. It's simply a road map that tells you what kinds of energy/events will probably manifest in your life.

Predetermination doesn't play a part in astrology. Personally, I don't believe in predeterminism, I believe humans have choices.

Great story Forest. There is no doubt that astrology is a useful tool for meditation, and can offer profound guidance. The same is true with a great many things in life -- history, philosophy, and religion are other examples. Your story clearly illustrates that.

#

I want to comment on your statements involving predetermination. I disagree with you. I think that there was a certain EXTREMELY COMPLEX destiny that you followed, which included astrology, and reforming your self various ways that existing astrological methods could not predict. Your life was not something that astrology could forecast in detail, but your particular fate WAS CHANNELED.

I can say for sure, from my limited understanding of astrological methods (and I don't claim to be an expert, but merely more knowledgeable than your average person) -- astrology, as it currently exists, is NOT CAPABLE of the fine details associated with your life, only the general trends (as you said eloquently above.)

You were fated to have your astrology charted. You were fated to depart from the chart in ways that were personal to you. It was all predetermined. (At least that is what I am asserting.)

#

Your final statement has left me thinking. Free will -- what makes you decide one way or another, given any choice you have opportunity you make? I would submit for consideration: all choices you can possibly make are based upon YOUR PAST. You cannot change your past (of course) therefore whatever choice you make, which you regard as the exercise of your free will -- is actually predetermined.

I really thought about your post Forest. Very provocative! And I thank you for that!

Originally posted by dave420
No scientists have found any evidence to support it. It would be very useful to humanity to have such information, yet people can't find it. That suggests, to me at least, that it's bunk.

I saved my response to your brief (but pithy) comment for last, Dave. I have a lot to say on your post.

First, I AGREE with you that astrology lends itself heavily to "bunk", and I personally would never take a walk-on astrologer's opinion seriously. My faith in your average person's ability to interpret or forecast someone's life -- well -- it's just not there! I would not want to misrepresent my position. I don't think astrology is a science in itself. For astrology to work, the astrologer has to have some quality of understanding that we usually call "psychic".

#

My contention is that astrology CAN work. (I don't want to imply that I think it actually DOES work, at least in the general case.) The reason I theorize that it can work is as follows:

#1. Time can only be measured through periodic occurrences of something, such as the hands of a clock. Something has to be repeating.

#2. Using this measurement of time, you can easily find the time since any event has occurred in history.

#3. The future is immutable, and predestined. (This is a big jump, but I discussed this earlier.) We can measure the time to any future event.

#4. Astrology is just a method of keeping time, in a highly sophisticated way.

#

The above points are just slightly different ways of stating my previous points (which are very dense -- sorry about that.) The crux of the matter is that TIME ITSELF is not something that you can scientifically prove. It is something that forms a framework that we exist in.

In order to scientifically prove my theory would require a very complex statistical analysis as follows: You would make astrological predictions, check the error of each prediction, and then look for some reason for the error. It would be like decoding a very complex encoded message. To the average user, it looks random -- but if you have the key, you quickly see that the message makes sense.

There are many ciphers that are beyond human abilities to crack. But just because a human cannot crack a code, does not mean that there is no decryption key.

Thanks Dave. Good comment!

(Edit: I see you have your mood set to "Depressed" -- please cheer up, buddy! )

[edit on 12-3-2008 by Buck Division]

I think it's simpler than that Buck.

The whole idea that everything is predetermined makes logical sense if you believe in upward causation. ie. that our consciousness is a byproduct of it's environment.

I think it's the other way around.

And this would explain astrology as well, including the part where once you find out about your "astrology map", you tend to no longer follow it (unless of course you choose to, or believe that it's your destiny). Fact is, your map never existed until you observed it! If space can be created via observation, then time can as well.

Here's a good link explaining how astrology works:

www.annabelburton.com...

The same way the moon has a gravitational pull on the tides all of the planets have a gravitational pull on us. The human body is mostly water.

Absolute hogwash. I'm sorry to say that about a theory that you've obviously put so much time into, but it's still just silliness dressed up for a evening on the town.

Astrology "works" because people are subject to a number of different cognitive biases that always allows them to see themselves in their charts. Any skilled astrologer or huckster can create a chart that sounds like it perfectly describes you, but it would just as likely perfectly describe me because it would have enough generalities and similarities to cover the bases.

Again, common sense, people. I believe in the supernatural. I believe in life after death. I believe in many spiritual phenomena. I don't, however, believe in parlor tricks like astrology, numerology and tarot.

Originally posted by Kruel
I think it's the other way around...your map never existed until you observed it! If space can be created via observation, then time can as well.

Interesting comment, Kruel. (I responded to your other post above, which is an amazing topic also!) There is some interplay with human consciousness and destiny, no doubt. It goes back to what I earlier posted about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which I'm still pondering in reference to this thread. It is an essential component in the argument for free will, and I am still thinking about it.

I will repost one of the links in your above thread below:

www.dhushara.com...

The above link goes a long way to providing background (and argument) against my original assertion. But I have to maintain, at least for a while, that the past really is immutable, and not subject to conscious thought, but merely conscious interpretation.

One thing is for sure: there is some aspect to the psyche that links with detecting, understanding, and feeding back into the whole astrological phenomenon. I will ponder this a bit more before I say anything to presumptuous.

Thanks for the post, Kruel. (Also, great thread on whether life is a dream, referenced in your quoted reply!) I will definitely take this into account before making any final postscript to this thread.

Originally posted by Neiby
Absolute hogwash. Astrology "works" because people are subject to a number of different cognitive biases that always allows them to see themselves in their charts.

I appreciate your opinion Neiby. Your suggestion is precisely why I think this thread is important. Specifically, many smart people dismiss astrology out of hand, and I am not so sure that this truly reflective of reality.

Note that I agree that you can't trust an astrological interpretation. (I said this earlier.) Similarly, there is a lot of quackery in medicine as well. But to dismiss astrology without knowing the basis for it (and listen Neiby, astrology is FOUR THOUSAND years old!) -- this is a mistake, reasonable as it may be to make.

What I am trying to do in this thread is demonstrate that astrology CAN WORK based upon a scientific perspective. That is to say, I am trying to establish a scientific basis. Frankly, I'm satisfied I have started that. But I am looking for arguments against my theory.

Do you have a specific example or question that might clarify your opinion, or refute this? What you said specifically in your post was an example of why it works -- people can see themselves in their charts. How does astrology NOT work? Let's find an example and discuss this.

I'm glad you are passionate. I will respond to any further comments you have.

Originally posted by MissInformation
Here's a good link explaining how astrology works:
www.annabelburton.com...
The same way the moon has a gravitational pull on the tides all of the planets have a gravitational pull on us. The human body is mostly water.

I like the above link, Missi. Great contribution!

Clearly, there are certain precise cycles to our lives: daily, monthly, seasonal cycles. Cycles of youth and age. And these absolutely correspond to the cycles of the planets and heavenly bodies

But I have to say -- my theory has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any gravitational influence by the planets! In my theory, the constellations and planets are nothing more than indicators of time, like the hands of a clock.

#

According to my theory, all you need to predict the future is some method of keeping time, and some way of mapping that time keeping to events.

For example, here is a method of divination. I just made this up here:

Consider a water clock. It drips every few seconds at a very regular rate. Now consider someone (maybe a high priest) who does nothing but count the drops. He records every drop, every seventh drop, every two hundred and eleventh drop, every six thousand and thirteenth drop.

From these figures, he derives a vast system of time scales, stretching out from a brief moment to dozens of years at a time. (Maybe he multiplies, divides, and adds these figures together, in a secret equation, handed down over the centuries.) Based upon the results of these equations, he derives a number. He looks that number up in a book of prophesy in order to make his predictions.

I contend that, given the correct book of prophesy HE WILL BE ABLE TO PREDICT the future. Maybe not precisely. Maybe this book is not 100% accurate. But it is theoretically possible that this fictitious high priest would actually do a perfect job of forecasting things, depending on how good the book was, and how diverse his equations were.

Finally, a good mathematician would be able to look at this system of the high priest, and figure out a straightforward mathematical translation between his system of drips, and the motion of the planets. This would be possible because while the water clock was running, so also the planets were moving – both at a regular rate. This high priest is just using a different type of clock than that given by planetary motions. They are both different forms of the same thing.

#

I know this is bizarre and dense. But I content this is scientifically true. I’m waiting for anyone to refute me on this, or show me the error in what I am saying.

Bottom line: the planets aren't controlling us or influencing us. They are just being used to measure time intervals in a complex way. Astrology is just a map between these time intervals and the current (or future) state of universal "being".

I'm not dismissing it out of hand. I've thought a lot about it and read a lot about it. There's simply nothing to it. It's a parlor trick that depends on our natural human biases and trust to work, just like any other con game. The positions of giant balls of gas floating in space thousands of light years away has absolutely no bearing on us. There is *zero* evidence to think otherwise. None. At all.

I do applaud the fact that you're really thinking about it in a novel way, but I think you're chasing a red herring. There's no there there if you continue down that road. I'd recommend finding something else more plausible to spend your time on.

Oh, I would also recommend studying logical fallacies as well as cognitive biases.

Logical Fallacies

List of Cognitive Biases

Study both of those pages. It will be very enlightening.

Originally posted by Neiby
I would also recommend studying logical fallacies as well as cognitive biases. Study both of those pages. It will be very enlightening.

What am I doing up so late? I need to get some sleep!

#

Okay Neiby, I don’t want to argue too intensely about how astrological predictions are a good thing. I only want to argue that astrology THEORETICALLY works.

But since we’ve gotten into a discussion about logical fallacies, I want to talk for a second about the Forer effect. This is a phenomenon that is often cited to debunk astrology.

The Forer experiment (not to be confused with Fourier, who I discussed earlier) proves that, when a group of people are given the exact same arbitrary and positive astrological reading, most people will accept it as a personal reading. This experiment seems to prove that astrological readings are fallacious. There is a good ATS thread on this subject here.

It may be that any particular astrological reading IS actually USELESS. But I don’t think you can just write off all of astrology based upon the Forer effect. I don’t think Forer experiments prove anything significant with regard to this thread, or whether astrology actually works or not.

Let me compare the Forer effect with another well-known phenomenon – the Placebo effect.

Consider, when people who are sick are given a placebo, they often get better. Therefore, medicines are useless. It is all the placebo effect! Throw out all your medications!

Of course this is stupid, and perhaps even dangerous. While it is true that placebos can make you feel better, it is often true that correct medicines make you feel even better than mere placebos. It is a matter of degree. Placebos work, but true medicines are superior!

Likewise, what Forer experiments may actually show is that a general reading may be interpreted by most people as accurate, but to a specific small group, they may be completely dead-on. Just like placebos contrasted with real medicines.

Just as the Placebo effect can't be used to prove a medicine doesn't work, the Forer effect can't be used to prove that astrology doesn't work.

#

You could experimentally prove an astrologer’s talent as follows: Have a very profound and skilled astrologer prepare personal charts for a group of people. Then, give half the people correct and very specific astrological readings, and the other half incorrect (perhaps RADICALLY incorrect) but equally specific readings. Then, perform a statistical analysis of the results to see if there is a difference.

I am unaware of any formal test like this ever having been performed.

The real irony here: anyone who has written off astrology, due to the results of the Forer experiment, has actually engaged in fallacious reasoning! If you have done this (and it is easy enough to do, so I am not being critical) you should consider re-evaluating your position on this. The Forer effect does not prove astrology is false!

I might have more to say on this tomorrow. Right now, it is too late to continue. I will be happy to answer any further comments or questions, and will respond to all posters at a later date.

Edit: Please be patient if I don't respond right away. Tomorrow is going to be a long day, and I'm running short of sleep. I'm definitely interested in any further discussion....

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Buck Division]