I feel obliged to point out that Dr. Rieux nowhere stated that he believed in astrology, only that he had some knowledge of it. Heck, I have some knowledge of it, too, enough to say that he’s right that two days would make a significant difference (the moon sign and house rising are supposedly the next most important aspects after the sun sign, and both of those would indeed probably be different). But (and I’ll be explicit on this point) I think it’s all a load of hogwash.
As for tests, once, many years back, there was a fellow on this board who did believe in astrology, and was actually a logical, scientific-minded fellow (yes, it was shocking to me, too). His position was that all of the studies which purported to debunk astrology were flawed in various ways, and I seem to recall that he even pointed out a few such flaws. We agreed on a fair and general test which, if performed, would satisfy both of us. In short: Give a large, randomly-selected sample of people a standard personality-profile test (we agreed on the Meyers-Briggs test), and ask for the time and date of birth of each test-taker. Take the value on each axis of the test as a function of time, based on the test results. Then, Fourier transform these functions. If astrology has any validity at all in predicting personalities, even if practitioners of astrology don’t know what they’re doing, then the Fourier transforms should show peaks corresponding to the various synodic frequencies of astronomical objects. If astrology does not have any validity, then one would not expect any significant peaks at all, much less at those frequencies.
Unfortunately, neither he nor I had the resources to execute this test, but I think it would be a legitimate one, if anyone considered it worth the effort.
‘Astrology: Sense or Nonsense’ by Roy Gallant 1974 Doubleday
‘The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Myth or Reality’ by Michael Gauquelin 1969 Stein and Day
‘The Gemeni Syndrome: Star Wars of the Oldest Kind’ by R.B. Culver and P. A. Ianna 1979 Pachart Pub.
‘Astrology Disproved’ by Lawrence E. Jerome 1977 Prometheus Books
‘Dreams and Illusions of Astrology’ by Michale Gauquelin 1979 Prometheus Books
Personally, I never understood why the constellations were/are regarded and having any effects on the lives of humans. The stars that make up constellations don’t really have any real physical relationship to each other except from our point of view here on earth. Also, there are billions of stars and an infinite number of possible combinations of constellations. Why would only 12 or 88 or 120 generally agreed upon constellations make any difference to us? They are totally arbitrary. I’m thinking of making up my own constellations such as the “Sponge Bob” constellation. And “Squidward”.
Also, when asked “you sign”, the person is really asking is “What constellation was the sun in on the day you were born?” Due to the progression of the equinoxes, the sun migrates westward along the (rather arbitrary) zodiac at a rate of about 50 or so inches a year. After about the year 220 AD, the sun was no longer in the constellation of Aries and is now in Pisces, but you are still considered an Aries. In the year 2,372, the sun will have migrated into the constellation of Aquarius, but you’ll still be an Aries. Astronomy doesn’t seem to update itself very well. I imageine it’s quite nice to have a ‘science’ that one can make up their own rules for.
Also, there have been some new planets discovered since astrology began, but they don’t seem to play a very large role. I wonder why that is.
Also, why would the exact moment of birth have any effect on a person. Personally, I think the exact moment of conception should be used! Ha! Chart that!
And, what if I was born very slowly- would my head be an Aries and my feet a Pisces? If someone traced all famous musicians, would they all share a common B-day or sign? nah.
I tell everyone who asks I’m a feces!! They always think I said Pisces.
Au contraire. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have all been quietly integrated, with attributes based on the Roman gods corresponding to their names (perhaps it’s just as well that William Herschel didn’t manage to get Uranus named “George” after all) and no sooner was “Xena” in the news the other week than one of the quacks, Jonathan Cainer, was banging on in the old fish and chip wrapper about what this new discovery meant.
…Precious little, since this remote iceball will take half a century to migrate from one star sign to the next, or something like it, but don’t underestimate the abilities of snake-oil salesmen to adapt to shifting circumstances. They’ve had a lot of practice.
Thanks! That’s pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Pretty interesting reading too, the “time-twins” of the test would appear to be an astrologer’s wet dream (you can’t get much closer than that). I wonder how an astrologer would respond to such evidence?
I just found a newspaper article of the study here. Here’s how one astrologist responded:
“Frank McGillion, a consultant to the Southampton-based Research Group for the Critical Study of Astrology, said of the newly published work: “It is simplistic and highly selective and does not cover all of the research.” He added that he would lodge a complaint with the editors of the journal.”
Whoops, wrong quote. That guy is just a “consultant”. Here what I meant to paste:
“The findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles yesterday. Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, said the study’s findings should be treated “with extreme caution” and accused Dr Dean of seeking to “discredit astrology”.”