Sharon Hill has an article on the Committee for Scientific Investigation website that exposes, yet again, the fraud of astrology. She begins by citing a statement from astrologer Susan Miller: “What I do is scientific. Astrology involves careful methods learned over years and years of training and experience.” Yes, you can laugh now. Hill responds:
The foundation of horoscopes and astrological charts is a set of rules about how to decipher the locations of planets, the sun, and the moon in the sky at the time of important events. The astrologer will undertake hours of complex mathematics to derive a detailed horoscope. This framework, however, is flawed. There is no discernible influence of celestial bodies on humans. Therefore, all the complicated number crunching in the world makes no difference because the conclusion is nonsense. Garbage in: Garbage out.
Proponents have no plausible explanation for how astrology might work. Various natural mechanisms have been proposed, but physically measurable forces fail because astronomers can demonstrate that they are too small to be significant. Therefore, astrologers must resort to some unknown entity. Whenever you have to resort to “insert supernatural here,” your concept is no longer a scientifically testable hypothesis…
There is a distinct tone of “sciencey-ness” to astrology. Practitioners will call it “scientific” based on the methodological, careful and systematic use of calculations and real astronomical position data. (Never mind the various natural laws these calculations utterly disregard.) They consider “research” to mean consulting tables and the rules.
Astrology is an unworkable, failed theory. Its predictions are so imprecise that they are difficult to test. Astrologers have not provided an acceptable, natural basis of why humans should be so influenced by celestial conditions at a particular time. The astrological paradigm has failed to contribute any knowledge to the social sciences. Imagine how USEFUL such a theory could be, and yet…it isn’t at all. Except to those who benefit from the feeling of a semblance of control over their affairs.
At no time would a scientist say that a cause simply did not matter so long as he believed it to be true. This is what astrologers have done—exhibiting a clear indication that astrology stands today as a belief system; it is not scientific, it is a pseudoscience.
Indeed it is.