• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

"Astrology Isn't Bullsh*t!"

A

Anonymous

Guest
http://astrocenter.astrology.msn.com/msn/ArticleAstrologyHome.aspx

Ever since the dawn of humanity, our species has been fascinated with the sky and the heavenly bodies that move across it, without fail, every day. Archaeologists have discovered several artifacts that hint that the effect of the Sun, Moon, and planets on the earth and its inhabitants was well known as long ago as 25,000 years. In southern France, a horn was found, carved with crude images of the phases of the Moon, which has been dated to roughly that time.

Although there are few written records of astrology up until about 2300 BC, it must follow that it continued to develop in various stages between the carving of the horn and the earliest writings in Mesopotamia. And it has continued to flourish and develop in one form or the other right up until the present.

If a discipline doesn't work, then intelligent people will abandon it. Yet astrology has been around for at least 25,000 years that we know of. So why do so many skeptics out there insist that it's nothing but fantasy? Probably because they know nothing about it! Well, here is a little more knowledge that might enlighten a little.


Myth No. 1:
Astrology is not a true science because its practitioners don't use scientific methods.

As we understand, it, the scientific method has four steps: 1. Observation of specific phenomena; 2. Devising a hypothesis to explain the phenomena; 3. Using the hypothesis to predict similar phenomena; 4. Testing of the predictions through experiments.

Well, isn't this what astrologers have been doing for millennia? We observe that something happens when a certain planet is in a certain sign. We wonder if there might be some kind of correlation between the two events. We observe the planetary movements again, and then we test our hypothesis by detecting if similar things happened under that particular transit. Isn't that the scientific method?


Myth No. 2:
There has never been any scientific testing that has proven the credibility of astrology.

Yes, there has! Beginning in 1949 and continuing for the next thirty years, two French psychologists, Michel and Françoise Gauquelin, performed painstaking research on over 60,000 natal charts, which confirmed that certain ancient astrological tenets overwhelmingly proved to be valid. The most impressive results involved the fact that an astounding number of gifted athletes had Mars within ten degrees of one of the four angles of the chart. The study of Mars effects was only one that produced results at the level of 100,000 to 1 against chance.


Myth No. 3:
Astrology is so general that horoscopes can apply to just about anybody.

Anyone who believes in this statement has ever read a good horoscope written by a skilled professional - and this includes horoscopes based solely on Sun signs. One of the most noted bestsellers of the late twentieth century was Linda Goodman's, Sun Signs, which revealed in detail what to expect from natives of the twelve Sun signs. There was nothing general at all about her analyses of each sign. Each was intricate and individualized. The book sold so well because it obviously struck a chord in readers.

Myth No. 4:
People become astrologers only because they can make a lot of money doing it.

Ha! Most astrologers would laugh out loud at this bit of ignorance. Anyone who believes that has only to gaze at the bank accounts and royalty statements of even the most famous of astrologers to be quickly disabused of this idea. Linda Goodman was the exception - and even she never gave Donald Trump any competition. Most astrologers struggle to make their rent every month. For us, astrology is a labor of love, a way in which we can, in our own small way, make life on Earth a bit easier and, as a great bonus, find fulfillment in what we are doing.


Myth No. 5:
Astrology couldn't possibly work, because the gravitational pull of the Sun, Moon, and planets is too weak to affect life on Earth.

The myth here is that gravity is the force that makes astrology work. To our knowledge, no astrologer, or astrological researcher, has ever made this claim. In his famous TV series COSMOS, the late Carl Sagan made the statement that when he was born, the gravitational pull projected by the obstetrician was stronger than that of the Sun. Yet that only proves that astrology is not connected with gravity - not that it isn't valid. Millions of satisfied clients - plus the work of Michel and Françoise Gauquelin - attest to the fact that it is.


Myth No. 6:
The Bible says that astrology is the work of Satan and thus its practitioners are evil.

A few references in the Bible imply that in ancient Hebraic society, astrology was frowned upon. However, there are so many others which extol astrology that their significance far outweighs those references. There are a number of psalms referring to information gleaned from the stars. Perhaps the most famous is Psalm 19: The HEAVENS declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. The recent archaeological discovery of a beautiful mosaic showing the twelve signs of the Zodiac, in a first-century Jewish synagogue, implies that perhaps it wasn't quite such a taboo after all.

As for evil: Astrology is just a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can use it to destroy something beautiful. But its use for good or evil is up to the wielder, not the hammer itself.

So how does astrology work? We really don't know - though there are a few enlightened scientists out there speculating about it, because of new discoveries and theories made every day confirming a lot of ideas formerly considered ridiculous. But one doesn't need to know HOW it works to benefit from it - and to understand it as beneficial and a force for good.

Can anyone beat that for sanctimonious crap? :hmph: Next week: How fortune cookies work by spooky invisible rays.
 
I have to say that I think Astrology is Drivel.

You can write any amount of spurious crap into a daily astrology column, and the chances are that a percentage of people will empathise with your predictions.

I look at my stars occasionaly, for a laugh, and according to the great 'seers' I should be a millionaire playboy, living in the bahamas by now.

What astounds me more than the fact that they're still going nowadays, is that fact that a large percentage of people still believe in it.

Eventualy, as a species, the human race will become advanced and educated enough to realise that we do not need to rely on superstition or religion to explain things we don't understand at the moment.
 
Yup. Pure, unadulterated drivel.


Myth 1:

As we understand, it, the scientific method has four steps: 1. Observation of specific phenomena; 2. Devising a hypothesis to explain the phenomena; 3. Using the hypothesis to predict similar phenomena; 4. Testing of the predictions through experiments.

Well, isn't this what astrologers have been doing for millennia? We observe that something happens when a certain planet is in a certain sign. We wonder if there might be some kind of correlation between the two events. We observe the planetary movements again, and then we test our hypothesis by detecting if similar things happened under that particular transit. Isn't that the scientific method?

Okay... "something that happens when a star is in a certain sign" is NOT a phenomena. The basis of astrology is an assumption- that the stars dictate our lives- and everything works from there. That is NOT scientific.

Myth 2:

The study of Mars effects was only one that produced results at the level of 100,000 to 1 against chance.

With infinite possibilities (athetic ability, artistic ability, etc, etc) and a vast number of celestial objects (stars, planets, sun, moon, combinations, etc) its perfectly reasonable that 100,000-1 odds would crop up somewhere.

Myth 3:

Is perfectly valid. Show me a horoscope that tells me very specific meaningful things about me and I will be very happy.

Myth 4:

No, its because they're either stupid, or have bad critical thinking skills. Or both.

Myth 5:
Okay, yes, thinkings its gravity is pretty retarded. But what else could it be? Any ideas? No? Okay, sweet. Until you show me evidence I'll feel safe dismissing it.

Myth 6:

Its not the work of Satan, its the work of lingering superstition and a lack of critical thinking.
 
Next week: How fortune cookies work by spooky invisible rays.

:rofl:

Isn't that how *everything* works? ;)

To be fair to astrology I think if you consider it as a (admittedly particularly complex) divination system then it is as valid as any other.

I've never really got round to learning any astrology and it's not high on my to-do list. I don't have any time whatsoever for newspaper sun sign horoscope type stuff, but then I'm one of these weirdos who is still working with only seven 'planets'.
It would be nice to be able to do electional and horary charts for the performance and timing of magic(k)al work, but I get by with a mixture of other forms of divination, other systems of correspondance and the planetary days / hours system and the sun and moon signs.

I think to dismiss astrology as 'pure, unadulterated drivel' might be a little harsh though : I can't settle on a belief about whether or not you can really 'tell the future' or discover 'secret', 'true' information through any form of divination (the scientific rationalist says obviously not, but the magician has seen some very strange things, and the fortean in me just sits back and watches those fools argue amongst themselves), but you can certainly benefit from using them, and as this one's been around for literally thousands of years it is like an heirloom of humanity.
 
I think astrology is doodoo, but...

With infinite possibilities (athetic ability, artistic ability, etc, etc) and a vast number of celestial objects (stars, planets, sun, moon, combinations, etc) its perfectly reasonable that 100,000-1 odds would crop up somewhere.

Is wrong. The mars effect has been studied statistically for many years, been reproduced many times by many different groups, and has withstood mass debunking attempts. There have been at least 4 studies I know of that attempted to reproduce the results, and all 4 did. The test size samples were 1000-2200 professional athletes.

Here's more on it:

L’Influence des Astres published, in which Michel Gauquelin outlines his discovery of a planet/profession connection in French births, including the Mars effect for sports champions. Gauquelin shows that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn tend to occupy two zones just after rise and culmination at the births of eminent professionals significantly more or less often than chance would allow. Mars, for example, occurs in these zones more often for generals, physicians and sports champions; less often for painters and musicians.

Every attempt at debunking the mars effect has failed (most notably when CSICOP fudged their data). The statistical study has been repeated by different groups, gone through several rounds of peer review, and yet no one has ever been able to cast doubt on the initial results found by Gauqelin.

(I know many hear dislike CSICOP, so this may be of some interest)
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html

As far as I know, it's pretty much ended in a stalemate, with:

... are begging the question by drawing conclusions from a ratio based on an effect whose existence has not been demonstrated

I saw a bit on the mars effect on a semi-hard science daily on discovery (@discovery.ca/Daily Planet) about a year ago, so I don't think the correlation has been debunked unless it happened recently.

But you want to know the kicker? The results discovered by Gaquelin were completely the reverse of what the astrologers would have expected them to be.

So it's not really proof of astrology, but that the alignment of the planets may have some sort of indirect impact on infants. The mechanism is totally unclear, though...

P.S. Astrology is hooey, sure. But "the mars effect", and the controversy and drama around it, especially the CSICOP debacle, is quite an interesting and lengthy read..
 
Just to play Devil's advocate - a 'true' horoscope for any given individual is based on the exact date, time and place of their birth (a so-called 'natal horoscope'). Thus, those horoscopes seen in newspapers, etc. are 'bogus' if one rests on the assumption that the only truly accurate horoscope is a natal one. Secondly, such natal horoscopes are aimed more at a long-term picture over months, rather than focusing on the day-to-day minutae.
 
'In southern France, a horn was found, carved with crude images of the phases of the Moon, which has been dated to roughly that time.'

IIRC, what was actually found was a markings resembling what is basically a curve of dots. The theory is that this may be some sort of record to do with the moon. Make of that what you will - IMHO, it may just be an imaginative guess from the realms of archaeology.
 
Even if they did find some old horn with pictures of the moon, what would that prove? Just shows somebody was looking at the sky, and painting what they saw. Perhaps using it for a calendar. It doesn´t show that they believed people went nuts during full moon or anything like that.
 
I've often wondered how advances in astronomy have effected astrology. Dosn't the discovery of a new planet throw the whole thing off kilter? And what about changes in the night sky over the last few thousand years? I don't see how these problems can be surmounted without a total rethink of the system, which then makes modern astrology a completely different beast to that practiced by our forebares.
Why should it be any more accurate or credible than examining animal entrails or watching birds fly out of Buddha's nostril?
 
I like the way the article states "we follow the scientific method! We observe a phenomena, then devise a hypthosis to explain it. So how does astrology work? We haven't got a sodding clue! But it does!"

What happens if, assuming we don't blow ourselves up, humanity progresses to a level of technology at which people can set up colonies elsewhere in the galaxy?

The children of these pioneers would be born under a completely new set of star signs, because the signs of the zodiac amount to no more than the arbitrary assignment of patterns and shapes to different balls of gas millions and millions of miles apart and with no obvious relation to each other, aside from the fact they form a pretty pattern when viewed from this one solitary spot in the universe.
 
Have astrologers ever predicted the existance of a previously unkown planet based on unexplained character traits? :)
 
Have astrologers ever predicted the existance of a previously unkown planet based on unexplained character traits?


Ophiuchus is apparently the 13th astrological sign. Resource page here. Haven't read that much on it as I can't be arsed with astrology.

I suppose the fact that Sedna was discovered recently means that Astrologers will say that this is just confirmation of what they already knew.
 
If astronomers can decide whether it's a planet, planetoid or random big rock-lump!
:D

Edited for shpelling mishtake.
 
StellaBoulton said:
If astronomers can decide whether it's a planet, plantoid or random big rock-lump!
:D

Indeed :D



IMO astrology is a nice, vague science that does the trick to fill a gap for some people. It just doesn't do anything for me.

Apparently I should avoid all Scorpios at all costs- they are bad for me.

My best friend in the whole wide world is a Scorpio. Go figure. :rolleyes:
 
JerryB said:
Just to play Devil's advocate - a 'true' horoscope for any given individual is based on the exact date, time and place of their birth (a so-called 'natal horoscope'). Thus, those horoscopes seen in newspapers, etc. are 'bogus' if one rests on the assumption that the only truly accurate horoscope is a natal one. Secondly, such natal horoscopes are aimed more at a long-term picture over months, rather than focusing on the day-to-day minutae.

Yes, we shouldn't confuse a generalised, waffly newspaper 'horoscope' with something worked out according to true star positioning. The things we see in the press have no validity and are a pile of poo. As for a 'properly worked out' horoscope, who knows? I don't know if anybody has made a truly scientific study of its validity.
 
JerryB said:
an imaginative guess from the realms of archaeology.
Good lord - you'll be telling me next that when archaeologists say "this fragment of dog poo is quite clearly of ritual significance", what they actually mean is "we do not have the first clue what this fragment of dog poo is, so we will say that it is something that cannot be disproven, yet also makes us appear knowledgeable". According to archaeologists, all our ancestors seem to have done is practice rituals.

Archaeology, economics, astrology - all wish-washy pseudo-sciences, hiding the fact that they are unable to actually explain or predict anything with any accuracy by propogating all manner of fancy-schmancy semantological contortions.

Blimey, that sounds a bit bitter, so apologies if I've offended anybody, but I did get a decent A level in Economics (back when they were difficult) by simply making things up, and I also studied archaeology at university for 2 years before realising what a load of old honk it all was, and dropping out to do that most useful of degree subjects - geography (at least it was proper hard science though - a lot of physics and engineering involved. And absolutely nothing of ritual significance. Except for getting mashed up in the SU every Wednesday after football).
 
Agent Buffy said:
Archaeology, economics, astrology - all wish-washy pseudo-sciences, hiding the fact that they are unable to actually explain or predict anything with any accuracy by propogating all manner of fancy-schmancy semantological contortions.

I think that's a bit harsh ;) Don't write it all off because of a few somewhat wilder ideas. But I agree that some archaeologists and/or the theories they create are probably a liitle more florid than is necessary. A classic example of such stuff is the UK TV series that's on at the moment, 'Pagans' (it's not about Wiccans and modern 'pagans'). The majority of what's put across to the viewer is largely conjectural, and seems to have sprung fully formed from the minds of certain archaeologists ;)
 
True - I could probably afford to be a bit more open-minded, but I still carry some battle scars from the dark days of my archaeological studies. The one that really did it for me was when we were shown a piece of pot (maggot-ware, if that means anything to you ;)) which had patterning in a single band around it. Then we were shown a bit with two bands around it, and then one with two bands, separated by a line. From these artefacts, apparently, we were able to deduce that the first shard came from a time when the tribe was unified (one band of pattern), the second part came from a time when the tribes had split (two bands of pattern), and the third from when there was conflict between the two tribes (harsh dividing line between two bands). I looked at that, thought "that's the biggest crock of conjectural $h!t that I've ever heard", walked out and never looked back.

Still, it did give me a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism (perhaps too much, some might say :))
 
Hmmm, that does sound like a crock of poo, indeed.
How do archeologists know this, that's what I'd like to know. I did consider studying it myself, but was put off by the fact that I'd have to study a lot of irrelevant stuff before I got to do anything interesting. :)
 
Mythopoeika said:
How do archeologists know this, that's what I'd like to know.
Very good question - the yardstick I go by is this: if the phrase ritual significance or any permutation like that comes up, then (unless they're talking about a church) they probably have as much idea as you or I do about what it is.

A lot of it is about whether your face fits was the conclusion I came to - if you are spouting the theories that people want to ear, then that word becomes law, and only heretics say anything else. Feel free to mock them, until the wind changes.

Again, I have undoubtedly been poisoned by my experiences, but that's the way it seemed to me (not saying that any other subject is very different, of course - just think Gallileo!)
 
Astrologer predicts own death

Lets see if hes correct...

Astrologer predicts own death

Hundreds of Indians flocked to a village in the central state of Madhya Pradesh on Thursday to see if an astrologer who forecast his own death would die as predicted.

Kunjilal Malviya, 75, who lives in Sehara village, about 125 miles south of state capital Bhopal, was meditating in his house after announcing he would die on Thursday.

His family fears his forecast will come true.

"We are afraid of his prediction coming true because all his predictions till date have been correct," his son Anirudh said by phone.

"My father had predicted the death of my grandfather 15 years ago and it came true exactly like he calculated."

Television footage showed relatives and friends seated around Malviya, singing religious songs and reading Hindu texts.

Policemen have been posted near his house to prevent the astrologer from killing himself, authorities said.

Astrologer
 
Astrologer wrong on the big prediction

He was wrong! :twisted:

Astrologer wrong on the big prediction Thu Oct 20, 2:45 PM ET



Hundreds of people flocked to a village in central India Thursday to see if an astrologer who forecast his own death would indeed die as predicted.

But the 75-year-old man survived the day.

Kunjilal Malviya, who lives south of the Madhya Pradesh state capital Bhopal, had been meditating in his house after announcing he would die Thursday between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m

(0930-1130 GMT).

A police official confirmed the astrologer was fine and quoted his family members as saying the prediction failed because many of those gathered had prayed for him to live.

"We are afraid of his prediction coming true because all his predictions till date have been correct," his son Anirudh said by phone earlier Thursday.

"My father had predicted the death of my grandfather 15 years ago and it came true exactly like he calculated."

Police have been posted near the house to prevent the astrologer from killing himself, authorities said.

Millions of Indians consult astrologers about their futures as well as marriage and job prospects.

Malviya's prediction is not the first of its type by an Indian astrologer. But in the past, crowds have beaten up astrologers when their predicted demise failed to occur.
Astrologer
 
I seem to remember a recent TV documentary where 'experts' pointed out that astrology depends on precise positioning of planets at given times of the day/year, all based on dates in the Julian calendar. When most of the world went over to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the planetary position/date relationship was changed completely, such that astrology 'cannot possibly work now'.

This may be claptrap, but if true it's a major failing in the system.

Also, it's been pointed out that the gravitational pull of planets on a new born child is a fraction of that of the nearby midwife, whose size and position in the room could therefore have a profound effect on that child's life!
 
I’ve always dismissed astrology out of hand, for many of the arguments cited here....and here’s another one: if a child gets delivered by C-section two weeks before they would have been born naturally (say, so that the obstetrician could go on a golfing vacation), wouldn’t the tenants of astrology dictate that this completely artificial change of birth date is going to produce a different personality in the child because of the different position of the planets??? How can something so complex as a human personality be substantially changed by so trivial a factor?

I don't believe there is any evidence that astrology, overall, makes testable, independently verifiable predictions. I don't believe astrology has evolved through a process of developing theories and testing them against observations in the systematic way that science requires.

HOWEVER, I do think we need to be careful about poo-pooing things too easily, and I am a bit dismayed by some of the comments I read here (and in other FTMB forums) that sound to me like they could easily have been made by CSICOP. IF somebody shows up with evidence that astrology or something astrology-like makes useable predictions, and it stands up to verification, then we should be completely open to changing our minds about astrology.

So lets look at the Mars effect. Athyra is right on about this. I have read some about this (not exhaustively) and it seems to be statistically significant and a genuine anomaly. I will change my mind when someone successfully refutes the statastical evidence.

When Piscez says:
With infinite possibilities (athetic ability, artistic ability, etc, etc) and a vast number of celestial objects (stars, planets, sun, moon, combinations, etc) its perfectly reasonable that 100,000-1 odds would crop up somewhere.
…this displays a lack of understanding of the term “statistical significance” and how it is used by scientists to affirm the existence of a correlation (which is not the same as a straightforward cause-and-effect). “Statistical significance” means that all possibility of odd coincidence has been eliminated.

So I'd say that the Mars effect is, at least at present, a true Fortean phenomenon: a verifiable unknown that can’t be explained by science or dismissed by skeptics. I would think Forteans would be delighted!

Next, I really take exception to this statement by Agent Buffy:
Archaeology, economics, astrology - all wish-washy pseudo-sciences, hiding the fact that they are unable to actually explain or predict anything with any accuracy by propogating all manner of fancy-schmancy semantological contortions.
By what stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that economics and archaeology are not scientific and lump them into the same category as astrology? This is a disrespectful and irresponsible statement (although nothing personal, Buffy, you’re not the only one here....love your show by the way). There are many sciences that, because of the nature of their subject, cannot make “hard” predictions or produce straightforward mechanistic models in the way that, say, physics or geology can. These would include any of the behavioral sciences - psychology, sociology - and yes, economics. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t employ the scientific method, or that they don’t produce useful results! Governments and huge corporations make major decisions based on economic predictions because they work (imperfectly...).

We’re Forteans! We should pride ourselves on (1) logical thinking (2) understanding of the scientific method, statistics, probability, causality (3) a strong belief in and reliance on the power of science to illuminate mysteries, AND (4) complete openness to unknowns and the possibility that the universe is very different from what we have been led to understand. Dismissing things out of hand based on preconceived notions of what can and cannot possibly be “real” is antithetical to Forteanism!

Thank you. (Climbs off soap box)
 
actually statistical significance doesn't mean that all possibilty of coincidence has been eliminated. Only at 95% (approx 1 in 20 or p=0.05) confidence level. I think Popper pointed out that perhaps the universe prefers a p= 0.06 significance level. Of course you can go for a 99%er, but most people don't start an experiment with that in mind - if it happens, then way hey! Remember that most newsreports only report descriptive stats and rarely report the important inferential stats. Further, stats need to be interpreted against the null hypotheses, the methodology of getting the data and the type of statistical tests being used. One also needs to be aware of the distribution and size of the population/area of interest sample being tested etc. See Boniface or Brace et al.
 
You are correct sir. I was not being accurate when I said that "Statistical significance means that all possibility of odd coincidence has been eliminated". I was focussed on refuting Piscez's statement to the effect that the Mars Effect could be an artifact of pure chance. The whole point of requiring a statistical analysis with a reasonably high confidence level is to DRASTICALLY reduce the possibility of that sort of random coincidence. I would have been more accurate if I'd said that "Statistical significance means that such an odd coincidence is extremely unlikely". But my refutation of Piscez's statement is still justified.

I dont know offhand what confidence level has been obtained for analysis of the Mars Effect, but it must have been 95% or so in order to get any notice. This would generally be considered a strong argument that the correlation is most probably real and is not due to random conincidence. As I understand confidence levels, p=0.05 means that if you performed this analysis 100 times with a different large body of observations each time, then 95 out of 100 times you would see this correlation.

Bolttom line: a verifiable anomaly that challenges the traditional scientific paradigm. Forteans rejoice.
 
Good answer - however, as much I wish that you were right about the p values (after all, it would make 'proof' so much stronger), however, one only needs to run the experiment once - the stats packages do all the clever stuff.
 
Hi guys,

I don't expect anyone will beleive me, but just for the record this is what converted this scientifically-trained (degree in nuclear physics) skeptic to a belief in astrology.

About 10 years ago I was working in a country in Eastern Europe. At a party I met a rather gorgeous woman who told me she was an astrologer. After the usual "all that astrology proves is that there is one born every minute" reaction from me, she made me a proposal. For one year I was to follow an astrologer in a weekly magazine that came out in that country (I strongly suspect that it was she herself who was the astrologer). If after a year I was not convinced, she would buy me dinner and vv.

I should say that the astrology section of this magazine was a lot more detailed than you get in magazines in the West. It wasn't just a question of everybody whose Sun-sign is Piseces has a hard time at work that week. For each sun-sign there were breakdowns for people whose moon was in the ascendant, whose star was in ascendant etc. So to find which predictions related to you, you had to do a bit of following instructions.
The predictions themselves were, in the main, the vague sort of stuff you find in Western newspaper astrology columns (let's face it, most of us lead vague lives most of the time), but just occasionally there were very specifc, above all - testable - predictions. These did not come up more than once a month.

I experienced five such testable predictions.

1) The prediction was "0n Monday morning at 9.00 precisely you will have a fierce argument with someone you normally get on well with". I thought this unlikely since I worked in an office by myself on a computer and would not normally meet anyone during my working day. Indeed, 9.00 am came and went and no-one communicated with me. So I thought that was that, when at 10.00 on the dot, a lady from accounts, with whom I had a mildly flirtatious relationship, rang up and tore me off a strip about some minor matter concerning expenses. Her attitutude was quite disporportionate to the gravity of the offence.
So a hit for the astrologer - but why 10 am when the prediction said 9 am? Was it that I was born in the UK (an hour's time difference) to the country in question?

2) The prediction was "on Thursday between 3.30 and 4.45 pm there is a grave danger of being bitten by a dog or a snake". As it happened I had a short holiday break that week and had forgotten all about the prediction when I returned home at Thursday mid-day. After unpacking, I was all set for a relaxing evening at home when I noticed we needed more bread. I popped out to the shops and sure enough, a massive guard dog being led on a chain by its owner lunged and bit me in the side. This is the only time in my life I have been bitten by a dog.

3) The prediction was "on 23rd June you will meet a heavy, unexpected financial loss". The 23rd June came and went - nothing. Phew. On the 25th a totally unexpected, massive Inland Revenue bill arrived. I looked at the postmark - yep, 23rd.

4) The prediction was "an important key will be lost which will never be found". I thought this might be one of those vague predictions about "the key to your life etc." but no, a key to the office safe, which was itself kept under lock and key, disappeared from its closed box which caused a lot of trouble and expense.

5) The prediction was "On Saturday evening a stain on your will cause a great upset". Indeed I spilled ink on my dress shirt just before a very important dinner engagement.

Unfortunately the experiement never finished. Suddenly the magazine format changed and its astrological advice reverted to the standard newspaer type horoscope. The contact number the lady gave me did not work.

Nevertheless the above hits were enough to convince me that there is something in astrology.
 
Back
Top