I have a very technical background in engineering and physics, and have studied astrology for over 20 years and done over 100 natal horoscopes. I simply accept astrology because it works.
Most astrologers probably fall into the 'belief' category in which they are convinced of its usefulness like we are, so they go about putting it to use with people rather than doing research or setting up test demonstrations.
However, people are becoming less and less satisfied with belief. The Age of Aquarius will turn us more and more proactive at researching and testing. Belief that is not tested is based in fear/ignorance and is soon becoming a relic of the Age of Pisces and increasingly seen as a poor basis for anything in society.
But you cannot test 'belief' on a purely intellectual basis. This is the common offense of scientific rationalists. The object or practice of the belief has to be put to the test.
In the press, often astrology is termed rubbish by "scientists". I find this condescending scorn of uninformed "scientists" revolting. None have ever taken the time to seriously study astrology and then try it out themselves.
Me too. Pretension to intelligence is easier than working for the real thing. Some rest on what they think they already know as certain rather than continuing to learn. It is an ego game in which it is easier to appear intelligent than it is to do the work to be it.
Of course if you try to come up with a "scientific" explanation as to why it works, you can't. But there are many things that science is unable to explain. Thoughts, our minds, etc.
Sure you can. Its so common sense that it is overlooked.
The Moon is close enough to exert gravity upon the material life on earth. That's a no brainer and should be the first thing pointed out to anyone who attempts to trash astrology. Much of early astrology before telescopes was very Lunar-based, even in ancient Greece. The Moon clearly exerts gravitational pull upon the earth's bodies of water. What are humans and animals and plants? Bodies composed of about 70% water.
The further out from the earth you go, the more other mechanisms we have to account for besides gravity. I think that gravitational effect comes only from the Moon, Sun, possibly Mercury and Venus.
Our cosmology isn't subtle enough yet. I think in around 100-200 years the mechanisms may become common knowledge. I look to torsion fields as the ultimate, unifying mechanism. I think our solar system exists in a giant torsion field created by our sun at its core and by the torsion fields of other plants in addition.
A Torsion Field is created by spinning bodies. While the mere mass of a nearby orbiting object is enough to set up a gravitational relationship, we have to examine what else is happening here. The planets are not only there and orbiting, but spinning. Torsion field research is in its very early stages, but the suggestion is that these spinning bodies apparently create a kind of funnel effect for energies to transfer from one dimension to another. That is my paraphrase of what I anticipate we will discover, but don't expect any researcher out there to say that or apply it to astrology.
Often cited is the Gaugelin Mars effect, trying to show statistical correlation of Mars in the 12th and great athletes, which seems kind of silly to me. This is a cherry pick doomed to failure and not at all a representative test.
I agree on Gaugelin. That work doesn't stand up to scrutiny and astrologers are best off letting go of it. Statistical correlation is never enough and can always easily be trashed by anyone good at playing numbers games. If any test or research is to gain the respect of broad scrutiny, then it will have to involve a proper clear-cut test using accurate planet pos/charts, as much specificity as is reasonably possible, use of controls wherever possible and keeping proper data records that are made available worldwide.
Why not have astrologers show how closely the natal horoscopes match the character of a number of test persons? Has this ever been done seriously? Why defend astrology on scientific terms? It will be doomed to fail in this arena. Why not defend it showing that it works?
Not sure why.
I do think it can be done, however, so that those far more familiar with the workings of astrology can set at least some of the framework for how such tests are done. The debunkers (Carl Sagan, James Randi) have picked the lowest hanging fruit - newspaper columns - for trashing astrology.
Many of them also do not feel it is worth more serious examination to put it to the test because their far-reaching assumption is that at the historical moment mainstream astronomy let go of astrology it became 'pseudoscience' and for scientific rationalists it immediately went into the 'superstition' category. Which, of course, they feel free to treat with disdain.
I would love to see astrology addressed openly with a very broad-minded, subtle and intelligent physics. Torsion fields and inter-dimensional physics are the key. Astrology is an inter-dimensional phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by current scientific understanding.
(You must be pulling my leg...)
).