The case for and against astrology

End of a shouting match

"If I doubt astrology to a believer, I am looked at with a shocked and

bewildered stare, as if I were attacking apple pie and motherhood." Anthony
Standen, Forget Your Sun Sign, 1977.
Abstract -- Eleven representative views of astrologers 1863-2006 imply that astrology is all-revealing, factual, inarguably
true, applicable to everything including past lives, enthralling to thinkers, soon to dominate scientific thought, the key to a
new world view, and more. Just study it seriously, they say, and you will be convinced it works. But seven representative
views of scientists 1930-1998 who studied it seriously imply the exact opposite. This conflict of views can be explained by
differences in what astrology means to different people, by differences in what astrology claims, and by the failure of
astrologers to allow for non-astrological factors (hidden persuaders) that lead to astrology-like outcomes. The case against
astrology is that it is untrue, it has failed hundreds of tests, and astrologers do not usefully agree on what a given birth
chart indicates. The case for astrology is that a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides low-cost non-threatening
therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. Much the same applies to sun sign astrology but at a more basic level. In short,
there is more to astrology than being true or false. But astrology is an easy target for commercial abuse. It also faces
strong competition from hundreds of self-help psychology books that it may or may not survive once its true nature
becomes more widely known. Includes tests of validity and agreement, and insights into how not to test astrology.

End of a shouting match

Astrology has been a field made quarrelsome by a shortage of facts. Could
astrology be true? Could the stars really correlate with human affairs? Such
questions have been furiously debated without resolution for more than
2000 years. Astrology has been the world's longest shouting match.
Not any more. Advances in related areas (astronomy, psychology, statistics,
research design) and a decisive technology (personal computers) have since
1975 put astrology under the scientific microscope like never before. Today,
most questions can be answered. Quarrelling is no longer the option it once
was. In what follows we ignore the usual tired arguments against astrology
(sun signs do not agree with the constellations, there is no known way it
could work) in favour of the only question that matters: What is the case for
and against astrology?
Unfortunately the media generally see astrology only as a sales gimmick (eg
sun signs in Sunday supplements) or as a source of sensation, as when
phoneline astrologers earn huge sums or when crooked astrologers fleece
the public. If your knowledge of astrology comes from what you read in the
media, be aware that you are likely to be seriously misinformed both for and
against astrology.
Views of astrologers
Astrologers leave you in no doubt that astrology works:
Against its detractors, astrology "will obtain an easy victory, a glorious triumph, by the force of its most powerful weapons
-- facts." (Alfred John Pearce, for nearly 50 years the learned editor of Zadkiel's Almanac, A Defence and Exposition of the
Principles of Astrology, 1863.)

"Practical experiment will soon convince the most sceptical that the bodies of the solar system indicate, if they do not
actually produce, changes in: 1. Our minds. 2. Our feelings and emotions. 3. Our physical bodies. 4. Our external affairs
and relationships with the world at large." (Charles Carter, leading British astrologer of his day, The Principles of
Astrology 1925.)
"Official science will recognise that the ancients were not mistaken, and astrology, aided by new methods of investigation,
will recover its ancient prestige." (French astrologer Paul Choisnard, whose verdict was based on his experimental
tests, Les Objections contre L'Astrologie: Reponses aux critiques anciennes et modernes 1929.)
"No one has ever been known to make a serious study of Astrology and then reject it." (Nicholas de Vore, American
astrologer and president of the Astrologic Research Society, Encyclopedia of Astrology 1947.)
"From being an outcast from the fraternity of sciences, it seems destined to assume an almost central role in scientific
thought." (John Addey, leading British astrologer of his day, Astrology Reborn 1971.)
"Astrology throws light on every department of life; ... From sex to career to character and future prospects -- and more."
(American astrologer Sydney Omarr, whose astrology columns were then appearing in nearly 300 newspapers, Astrology's
Revelations About You 1973.)
"There is no area of human existence to which astrology cannot be applied." (Julia and Derek Parker, The Compleat
Astrologer 1975, which sold over a million copies in ten languages. The first is a former President of the British Faculty of
Astrological Studies.)
"Anyone who makes a serious and open-minded study of astrology becomes totally unable to scoff. Its truths are
inarguable." (Mary Coleman, Australian psychologist and astrologer, Astro-Pick your Perfect Partner 1986.)
Astrology "despite the contemptuous guffaws of scientific orthodoxy, still continues to enthral the minds of some of our
finest contemporary thinkers." (Charles and Suzi Harvey, respectively former President of the British Astrological
Association and former Editor of its journal, Principles of Astrology 1999.)
"Astrology's symbols are the soul's language of life. They reveal not only the mysteries of the universe but also the
mysteries of each of our lives." (Gina Lake, American counselling psychologist and astrologer, Symbols of the Soul:
Discovering your Karma through Astrology 2000.)
Astrology "promises to contribute to the emergence of a new, genuinely integral world view, one that ... can reunite the
human and the cosmic, and restore transcendent meaning to both" (Professor Richard Tarnas, American philosopher and
astrologer,Cosmos and Psyche 2006.)

In short, astrology is all-revealing, factual, inarguably true, applicable to

everything including past lives, enthralling to thinkers, soon to dominate
scientific thought, the key to a new world view, and more. Just study it
seriously and you will be convinced it works. Or so astrologers lead us to
believe. Now a word from scientists who have studied it seriously.
Views of scientists
The following views reflect serious studies up to the 1990s:
"I myself, at the risk of appearing ridiculous even to my colleagues, have for fourteen years held my archives open for
astrological evidence, ... [but all were] the result either of a forced application of the rules to human careers already
known, or of a careful culling of hits from preponderating numbers of misses. I do not think that any psychical researcher
... has given attention to the claims of astrology and has not definitely cast the pretended science on the dust heap."
(Walter Price, presidential address to the Society for Psychical Research, 1930.)
"The ancients were evidently unaware that [astrological judgements] were the result of reasoning by analogy, which so
often proves a treacherous foundation. That is why the whole superstructure of astrology is so utterly worthless and
fallacious." (August Thomen, Doctors Don't Believe It 1938, a survey of medical superstitions.)
"The casting of horoscopes provides a living to thousands of individuals and provides dreams to an infinitely larger number
of consumers. ... [But] since the most painstaking studies have shown the inanity of horoscopes, there should be a strong

rising up against this exploitation of public credulity" (Michel Gauquelin, after analysing the horoscopes of 16,000 famous
people, Dreams and Illusions of Astrology 1969.)
"The picture emerging suggests that astrology works, but seldom in the way or to the extent that it is said to work."
(Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology 1977, a critical review by fifty astrologers and
scientists of over 1000 astrology books, 410 journal articles, and 300 relevant scientific works.)
"We are convinced however that astrology does not work. Astrology cannot be used to predict events of any kind, nor is
astrology able to provide any useful information regarding personality, occupation, health, or any other human attribute"
(Roger Culver and Philip Ianna, The Gemini Syndrome 1979, a review by astronomers of years of data collection, tests,
and most of the available evidence.)
"Astrology is largely (but not entirely) superstition. However, because of the important areas which remain to be
investigated, this conclusion may need future qualification. We should not be dogmatic." (Hans Eysenck and David
Nias, Astrology: Science or Superstition? 1982, a review by psychologists of the then most recent research.)
"The single fact that astrologers contradict each other at about every point, and the firm convictions of their own
correctness supported by their experience, must call up doubts about the reliability of [their] methods. ... Not a single
classical astrological element is shown to be able to resist statistical research." (Ronnie Martens and Tim Trachet, Making
Sense of Astrology 1998, a review of astrological claims.)

Evidently astrology works if studied by astrologers but not if studied by

scientists. How is such disagreement possible? To find out we must first look
at what is meant by "astrology".
What is meant by "astrology"?
Astrology means different things to different people and leads to different
levels of interest. In Western countries there are four broad levels of interest
in astrology as shown below with the rough percentage of the population
involved at each level. For comparison the proportion of people who are
dentists is roughly 0.05%.
Level of interest
1. Superficial -- Reads sun signs, seeks entertainment, 50%
2. Some knowledge -- Has own chart, seeks self-examination, 2%
3. Deep involvement -- Calculates charts, seeks meaning to life, 0.02%
4. Scientific -- Performs tests, seeks answers, 0.00002%
On going through the levels there is a huge falling off in numbers and a
dramatic change in what astrology means. At the first level are the readers
of sun sign columns. They see astrology as entertainment. At the second
level are those who have their birth chart calculated and read. They see
astrology as an intriguing way of exploring themselves. At the third level are
those who read charts to find meaning in their lives. They see astrology as a
form of religion unconnected with the entertainment of sun sign columns. At
the fourth level are those who test astrology scientifically. They see
astrology as a popular belief worthy of study regardless of whether the belief
is actually true.

The previous views of astrology by astrologers apply to levels 2 and 3, which

also apply to people who consult astrologers. In the USA roughly one million
people a year consult astrologers, which seems like a convincing vote in
favour of levels 2 and 3. But even this number is only about 2% of the
millions of Americans who at any one time are seeking answers to their
psychological problems, and is less than 1% of those who read newspaper
horoscopes. So the popularity of astrological consultations is perhaps no
more remarkable than the popularity of any of 99 flavours of ice cream -- if
it exists then some people will try it. Which of course does not explain why
astrologers are convinced that astrology at levels 2 and 3 really works. For
this we need to put astrology to the test.
Putting astrology to the test
Astrologers claim they can tell your character, abilities, health, love life,
events, destiny, and more, just from your birth chart. It seems amazing that
a handful of planets could show all this. Indeed, polls consistently show that
many people don't believe it. But astrologers have the perfect answer -- just
try it. Put astrology to the test, they say, and you'll be convinced it works.
What could be more reasonable? So this is precisely what research has
done.
Take sets of birth charts jumbled up with descriptions of their owners. Can
astrologers match charts to owners? In astrology books they do it all the
time. So we expect the proportion of successful matches to pile up close to
100%. To date a total of 54 studies have made this test using a total of 742
astrologers and 1407 birth charts. Despite these impressive numbers the
average success rate was no different from the 50% expected by chance,
see figure below. For these astrologers (many of them among the world's
best) astrology performed no better than tossing a coin.

Astrologers fail to match charts to owners better than chance

Here the results expected by chance were determined by picking matches at

random for each of the 54 studies and repeating 10,000 times. The

difference between the 51.7% success rate achieved by astrologers and the
50.0% expected by chance is easily explained by the tendency of journals to
accept positive results and reject negative results, and is in any case not
even weakly significant (p=0.77).
For astrologers this is bad news, which they dismiss in various ways. They
say the tests were unduly difficult or were run by people ignorant of
astrology (in fact many were run by astrologers). They say you cannot test
astrology (which if true would mean they could never know anything about
it). Or they see the bad news as proof of astrology's subtlety, so it is right
even when it is wrong (ditto). But once again research comes to the rescue
with an ingenious test that avoids any need to match charts with owners.
How well do astrologers agree on what a given birth chart indicates? To date
a total of 28 studies have put this to the test using a total of 559 astrologers
and 762 birth charts. Typically each test looked at how well 5 to 30
astrologers agreed on what a given chart indicated about its owner. Their
average agreement was dismal -- better than tossing a coin but nowhere
near the minimum acceptable, see figure below. Again many of these
astrologers were among the world's best.

Astrologers fail to usefully agree on what a chart means

In general no test of individuals is acceptable unless the agreement between

practitioners or between applications is above 90% where chance agreement
is 50%, that is, where first and second opinions agree better than chance in
4 out of 5 cases. However, if we are interested only in large differences
rather than small ones, as in measuring blood pressure, then agreement
down to 75% may be acceptable provided nothing better is available
elsewhere. But anything below 70% is generally useless because first and
second opinions will agree better than chance in less than 2 out of 5 cases.
The average agreement among astrologers was 54.9%, or better than
chance in barely 1 out of 10 cases.

The next question is obvious. If astrologers cannot usefully agree on what a

birth chart indicates, how can they know that astrology works? Indeed, why
should anyone bother with astrology in the first place? It is here that we
need to ask what is meant by "astrology works".
What is meant by "astrology works"?
One of the key inspirations of recent research has been to recognise that
astrology, however defined, delivers statements that (like statements
generally) can contain (1) factual information such as "you have red hair",
and (2) personal meaning such as "you are here to fulfil your destiny". As
shown below, the distinction between facts and meaning helps to explain
why astrology can be seen to work even when it doesn't.
At one extreme are people who seek only personal meaning. For them
astrology works if it provides meaning. Here "it works" means "it is
meaningful." This kind of astrology does not need to be true, and attacking it
would be like attacking Superman comics or a religious faith. At the other
extreme are people who seek only factual proof. For them astrology needs to
be true. Here "it works" means "it delivers results beyond those explained by
non-astrological factors", of which more later.
In between are people who see astrology as meaningful but grounded in the
kind of factual statements ("Leos are generous") that fill astrology books.
This allows research findings to be welcomed if positive ("it confirms
astrology!") and rejected if negative ("astrology is not like that!"). But it
does not end there.
How to convince yourself that astrology works
Linda Goodman says Leos are warm, generous, independent, and dislike
being told what to do. So you ask one hundred Leos if this is true. Ninety
say yes, the rest say it depends but generally yes. Cautiously you press on.
Astrologers say a Mars-Neptune conjunction signifies a person who is
idealistic and concerned with values such as consideration for others. So you
ask one hundred people with a Mars-Neptune conjunction if they are
idealistic. Ninety-five say yes.
Still cautious, you have your birth chart read. The astrologer tells you things
she could not possibly have known, like you have a sense of humour and
you sometimes worry about money. Amazingly, everything fits. You are now
convinced that astrology works. You haven't the foggiest idea how it works
but it certainly works. You conclude that disbelievers have no idea what they
are talking about.

For astrologers that is the end of it. Millions of people have tested astrology
in this way, and millions have ended up convinced that it works. For them
this is end of story. Astrology really works! No doubt about it!
Why scientists are not convinced
But scientists are not convinced. They know we can be fooled into seeing
faces in clouds by a whole host of non-astrological factors such as hidden
persuaders (reasoning errors and statistical artifacts). They also know that
the remedy is simple -- do what astrologers never do, namely use switched
data as controls. So they put the same questions to non-Leos and people
without a Mars-Neptune conjunction, and they have their chart read after
giving the astrologer someone else's birth data.
The results confirm their suspicions. Whereas 90% of Leos said they were
like Leo, so did 90% of non-Leos. Absence of a Mars-Neptune conjunction
made no difference to people's idealism. And someone else's chart fitted
them just as well as their own -- a point repeatedly confirmed by astrologers
whenever they inadvertently use the wrong chart. Many tests with switched
data have been made, always with results like these. Which of course is
consistent with the studies shown earlier, where astrology performed no
better than tossing a coin, and astrologers failed to usefully agree on what a
given chart indicated.
For scientists that is the end of it, at least until the evidence indicates
otherwise. Your sun sign and birth chart may fit you exactly but so do sun
signs and birth charts not your own. Astrologers and clients cannot tell the
difference. Like the Emperor's New Clothes, astrology seems to be built on
self-deception. At which point the message is clear.
The message is clear
Before deciding whether or how astrology works we need to test switched
data. We must stop asking if Leos are generous and ask instead if Leos are
more generous than non-Leos. Without such comparisons our tests will be
meaningless. But during twenty centuries astrologers have rarely tested
switched data. So they cannot claim to know whether astrology works. If we
bring together the evidence from hundreds of studies, and from articles
elsewhere on this website, the case for and against astrology can be stated
as follows. First the case against.
The case against astrology
The case against astrology is that it is untrue. It has not contributed to
human knowledge, it claims the prestige of science without the methods of
science, it has failed hundreds of tests, it does not deliver benefits beyond
those produced by non-astrological factors (hidden persuaders), and users

do not usefully agree on basics such as which zodiac to use or even on what
a given birth chart indicates. No hint of these problems will be found in
astrology books, which is why some scientists see astrologers as misguided
or even fraudulent. In fact astrologers are mostly nice people who genuinely
wish to help others.
But the claim that astrologers repeatedly make (astrology is true because
based on experience) is simply mistaken -- what they see as its strength
(experience) is actually its weakness (the experience is not assessed using
switched data). They show little awareness of the factors such as the
absence of accurate feedback that prevent learning from experience, or of
the numerous hidden persuaders that give the illusion of such learning in its
absence. Astrologers also show little interest in procedures that avoid the
weaknesses of experience, and every interest in ignoring unwelcome
evidence. Together these attitudes have created a case against that is longer
and stronger than the case for.
The case for astrology
The case for astrology is that it is among the most enduring of human
beliefs, it connects us with the cosmos and the totality of things, it provides
a basic means of describing ourselves, and there is a wide range of
approaches. In practical terms a warm and sympathetic astrologer provides
low-cost non-threatening therapy that is otherwise hard to come by. You get
emotional comfort, spiritual support, and interesting ideas to stimulate selfexamination. And new ideas are always emerging that could raise spiritual
awareness. In a dehumanised society an astrologer provides personal
support at a very low price. Where else can you get this sort of thing these
days?
Much the same applies to sun sign astrology but at a more basic level -- and
many people seem to want it. Or as historian and social critic Theodore
Roszak says in his book Why Astrology Endures (Briggs, San Francisco
1980): "For a growing number of people, the rich imagery of these old
traditions has become a more inspirational way of talking [about ourselves]
... than conventional psychiatry. The astrological universe is, after all, the
universe of Greco-Roman myth, of Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton,
Blake. It has poetry and philosophy built into it."
Conclusion
There is more to astrology than being true or false. But integrity and validity
are crucial because astrology lends itself to commercial abuse, as in sun sign
columns and phonelines, and to exploitation of the gullible. It also faces
strong competition from thousands of self-help psychotherapy books that
typically describe a problem and how to attack it, all supported by examples.

Such books, especially if based on sound scientific principles, can help as

much as psychotherapy does, see Clinical Psychology Review 13, 169-186,
1993. So it remains to be seen whether astrology can survive such
competition once its own true nature becomes more widely known.
You can find more on tests of astrology in Research results, which gives
abstracts for 91 studies typical of those made in the 1980s and 1990s, and
in Meta-analyses, which gives overviews of all studies made in particular
areas. Both articles are on this website under Doing Scientific Research.