I happen to be a bit of the scientific bent myself, but I had nearly given up on the idea that astrology could be proven through scientific means; therefore, I have tended to hang my logical/scientific hat at the proverbial door whenever exploring the realms of astrology, although I see now that this has been a mistake.
The problem is that most of these guys don't know there's anything more to astrology than Sun signs. there are more than a few articles pooh-pooing astrology after just using Sun signs to prove that astro doesn't work. However, when they get into the nitty gritty, tunes change.
Jung and Guaquelin come to mind immediately. Most of us know Jung's "Synchronicity," where he found the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant were closely linked in the charts of married couples beyond the realm of chance.
Gaughelin set out to disprove astro... but ended up proving it. ("The Scientific Basis of Astrology": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin -- although Wikipedia is not my first choice for a reference; you can Google him.)
I'll stick my nose into it a bit further and let you know what I come up with.
c
The problem is that most of these guys don't know there's anything more to astrology than Sun signs. there are more than a few articles pooh-pooing astrology after just using Sun signs to prove that astro doesn't work. However, when they get into the nitty gritty, tunes change.
Jung and Guaquelin come to mind immediately. Most of us know Jung's "Synchronicity," where he found the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant were closely linked in the charts of married couples beyond the realm of chance.
Gaughelin set out to disprove astro... but ended up proving it. ("The Scientific Basis of Astrology": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Gauquelin -- although Wikipedia is not my first choice for a reference; you can Google him.)
I'll stick my nose into it a bit further and let you know what I come up with.
c