Nowadays

 MORE THAN 30 YEARS LATER

Astrology has changed

Vedic astrology

The West has discovered the East, including Vedic astrology, which has been practiced in India for centuries.  Vedic astrological techniques differ considerably from Western ones and overcome a number of criticisms by Culver & Palmer, such as inconsistency in the orbs of influence of the planets and failure of Sun signs to check out as important factors.

A new generation of astrologers, who I would call Western Vedic astrologers, is practicing nowadays.  They believe that celestial bodies work by affecting consciousness, which pervades the whole Universe.  According to them, the real benefit that astrology has to offer is to explain why we are going through certain experiences, by analyzing effects of astrological factors on our individual consciousness.  What experiences will we have and when i.e. prediction is much less important.    Furthermore, Western Vedic Astrologers do not accept traditional astrological techniques at face value.  They are testing them and reinterpreting them. 

Vibrational astrology

Also Western astrologers no longer accept traditional astrological techniques at face value.  In the US there is a novel school of astrology that is testing new techniques based primarily no longer on the position of planets in zodiac signs and sections of the sky called houses, but on the reciprocal positions of the planets (mid-point structures and both minor and major aspects) and the use of harmonic charts. 

They claim that their methods describe how “individual energy is trying to flow” and that this is in line with modern physics, which shows that everything in the universe is based on energy.

What is more, they claim that all their teachings are based on hard evidence.   

Science has changed

Science is currently addressing the key issue of what consciousness is – in other words what we are.  As yet, no answer has been provided, but science has come up with some interesting theories that may have a bearing on astrology.

It is well known that there is an uncomfortable incompatibility between

 Relativity, which works perfectly in the macroscopic world together with classical physics. 

and

Quantum physics, which is related to the microcosm. 

Relativity and classical physics are based on determinism i.e. the principle that every cause has an effect and underpin the “scientific method” used to judge the value of scientific evidence.

Quantum physics, on the other hand,  indicates that uncertainty dominates in the Universe and that only probabilities can be calculated.  An act of consciousness is required during a measurement to make it collapse i.e. to make it become real.  In other words, there is no objective world out there.

All efforts to reconciliate the “two physics” have failed.  For many years there was a school of thought that believed that Quantum Physics was incomplete and that soon additional discoveries would be made that would resolve the incompatibility.   However, this has not occurred and the original “Copenhagen interpretation”, which claims that we are limited creatures who cannot understand reality, has not been refuted.

As time goes on, where does that leave the scientific method?  Maybe one has to accept that other approaches to learning the truth should be taken into consideration as well.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS WEBSITE

In summary, many things have changed in the field of astrology  and some things have changed also in physics over the last decades.  This website wishes to pick up where Culver & Ianna left off, and collect available scientific evidence designed to establish whether astrology is true or false.

Please contribute!

I have included all the important scientific evidence that I am aware of, but I suspect that there is more out there.

All readers are invited to contribute.  Please point out any important evidence for or against astrology that you are aware of and is not on the website.  By "important evidence" I mean a study with the basic features required to provide reliable findings: 

-  a sufficiently large sample size i.e. number of participants (statisticians can set the number required, based on the extent of the expected effect and the variability of the data)

-  a reference (control), such as the psychologist in the astrologer performance test described on this website, the comparison between true and fictitious zodiac signs in The Astrology File and the comparison between famous and undistinguished sportsmen in the research by Gauquelin.   

I also welcome:

- comments on evidence that is already there (are there any missing arguments that support or detract from the validity of the studies?) and

-  information on theories on how astrology might work.

If you are aware of important evidence, please contact me.  I shall be pleased to discuss its scientific relevance and what should be added to this website.   It is understood that the author of any contribution that is published will be duly acknowledged.