I have been to astrologers couple of times. Once, whatever he said worked. Not sure if it is a coincidence. Does astrology work?
Dr. Phil Plait, and Astronomer, has a great write up that debunks astrology (I cannot encourage you enough to read that page (or the google cache of it).) Sadly his web page seems to be down, so here’s the Google Cache copy of the same page. After a long discussion and research (with sources), he concludes with
Now let's look at other places.
If you want to look at this scientifically though, the first questions to ask: By what mechanism does this work? Why are predictions always very vague? And if the questions are specific, why are they no better than cold reading?
Emily Lu from the Palomar observatory (another Astronomy site) makes these great observations.
Also, here is an old video from Carl Sagan's Cosmos series that deals with Astrology. Note how he is reading the same astrology sign from multiple papers.
Keep in mind, any sort of "debunking" of this fervent wish by believers will meet with resistance. There will be explanations and rationalizations, but much like any "psychic", there is no distinguishing this from chance, or the art of cold reading (should you be visiting an astrologer). Confirmation bias will do the rest for you.
Also, keep in mind that astrology has tried to legitimize itself in complexity. Thus there is no single one answer or smoking gun that can be used to talk about it. Rather, a myriad of answers are required to fully understand what is going on. The human brain's pattern recognition software is poor in this sense, and that is why people will fall for this.
There are two claims astrologers make. First, that they can use it to predict the future: Google
Second, that your zodiac sign and date of birth tell something about your character.
The first claim is so inane that I do not think it needs much debunking. It is a mixture of self-fulfilling prophecies and overly vague statements. And, more often than not, it simply fails. Shouldn't astrologers otherwise be able to foresee natural disasters with astonishing precision? It is noteworthy that a lot of astrologers adhering to the second claim shun the first claim in an attempt to strengthen their credibility.
The second claim is easily debunked in experiment: Here is Derren Brown doing a nice little experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haP7Ys9ocTk
In brief: He writes "personal readings" for his test subjects and asks them to rate the accuracy of these readings. His readings get extremely high accuracy ratings (80 - 100 %), but it turns out that he has provided everyone with exactly the same reading. This is because he uses so called Barnum statements, also called the Forer effect (The Wikipedia article has a link to the original work by Forer).
A guy named Shawn Carlson conducted a study, published in Nature on December 5, 1985. Unfortunately, that link is a paywall. There's a description available, unfortunately not as authoritative. Essentially, he let astrologers test themselves, by setting up a test where they would use natal charts to predict peoples' scores on standardized personality tests. He picked thirty astrologers that were considered good by their peers. He appears to have given astrologers every chance to prove themselves right.
As people reading this might guess, the results were indistinguishable from chance.
It may also be worth pointing out that your familiar "astrological sign" ignores precession so to the extent the question relates to the "popular" astrology of newspapers and so forth, even if there were a mechanism, the predictions would be significantly off-base. I believe that even "serious" astrologers rely on the traditional "houses" and would be subject to the same bad data.
protected by Community♦ Nov 8 '12 at 21:12
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?