To get on with this work, let us assume that astrology does work, perhaps not according to the scientific method.
To study the different assumptions of how astrology works, we should take it for granted that astrology works. But…does it? This question is irrelevant to those who study astrology in depth, for they are certain that it works. To them, it is just like an act of faith. Such certainties are subjective and nontransferable. At least, one might say “astrology works for me”.
The truth is that many will regard astrology as a phenomenon, while others will not. According to French astrologer Patrice Guinard, the three prevailing hypotheses concerning the astrological fact are:
- Nothing is working. The supposed planetary effects are just due to human attribution. Astrology is just self-suggestion. (Geoffrey Dean’s hypothesis)
- Everything is working, regardless of the chosen technique, even the wrong chart. (Geoffrey Cornelius’ hypothesis)
- There are some real physical correlations between stars and living matter – correlations which produce changes in human psychic states; hence real research can be pursued which would be able to investigate and define these correlations.
In “Astrology, True or False?” astronomers Roger Culver and Phillip Ianna clearly state that astrology cannot be demonstrated according to the scientific method (at least not for the moment), and ask themselves “if astrology is good for nothing, why do people still believe in it?” Geoffrey Dean replies: “in fact, it works, but only in the minds of those who believe in it”. Generally speaking, its detractors place emphasis on the large number of fallacious assumptions upon which it rests (better not count the fallacious assumptions made by science), as well as on the experiments based on natal charts which fail to ratify traditional interpretations.
To get on with this work, let us assume that astrology does work, perhaps not according to the scientific method. In any case, we would be partial (and also inaccurate) if we believed that reality can only be validated from what science says.