Star-signs!

[Dan Howard]

Sorry, I've read over the word 'experiment'. My mistake. But who can say with clear evidence there are no such things and it's all rubbish ? Unless they can absolutely proof the opposite, you cannot say there is no such thing.

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It is up to those who support a hypothesis to provide evidence to support its validity. All I have asked for is a single scientific experiment that does this. If there is a balance of experiments some showing positive and some showing negative results then one is entitled to say that we don't know. When the overwhelming number of experiments all produce the same results, it is extremely likely that this is the "right" answer.

Here are some formal tests

In 1971 the Survey Research Centre of the University of California, Berkeley sampled 1000 adults in the bay area getting information on natal signs and lots of attributes claimed by astrology to correspond. For instance, Leos are supposed to have good leadership qualities. An analysis found no correlation for leadership, political stand, intelligence, belief in astrology, musical ability, artistic ability, confidence, creativity, occupation, religion, ability to make friends, to organise or to feel deeply. This showed that these tendencies do not differ between signs, and that natal signs cannot be used to predict personality traits.

In 1982 Australian Skeptics collected thirteen newspaper horoscope columns for the last week of August, rated them for good, bad and vague predictions about News, Health and Luck; Relationships; Finance and Travel. They found very little consistency, in fact most signs had a fairly even spread so, for instance, you could find one paper telling you it would be a lucky week and another saying the opposite. This shows that newspaper horoscopes are essentially random.

In 1985, Harry Edwards checked all the predictions from Old Moore's Almanack for 1984. These were written by a couple of top astrologers. Of the 200 predictions it was possible to check, less than 5% materialised and practically all of those could have been based solely on probability, prior knowledge or astute speculation. Astrologers are no better at predicting the future than anyone else.

In 1985, at the University of California, Berkeley, Shawn Carlson designed a test in conjunction with a number of America's top Astrologers to test the fundamental thesis of natal astrology. Considerable effort was spent ensuring that all parties were happy with the experiments beforehand. In the first experiment, people in a test group were given three horoscopes, one of which was theirs, and asked to rate them for fit. A control group, matched for sun-sign, was given the same horoscopes. The astrologers said the test group should pick their own horoscope at least 50% of the time but both groups did no better than chance. This showed that people can't identify their own horoscope and find any horosope satisfactory. In a second experiment participating astrologers were asked to match horoscopes with corresponding personality inventory tests. Again the astrologers did no better than chance. This shows that horoscopes do not predict personality.

On June 7, 1989, on American television, James Randi offered $100,000 to any psychic or Astrologer who could prove the truth of their claims. An astrologer who took up the challenge was given the birth information of twelve people and had cast their charts. He interviewed the twelve without knowing who was whom and was to identify them by matching them with horoscopes. He got none right.