The one truth that remains is that those who condemn astrology or say they don't believe in it haven't really studied it. Just some basic study under a competent professional astrologer with an open mind would convince them that there is something to this ancient science. I'm not against modern science, and don't accept that a belief in astrology exclusively negates an acceptance of modern science. Astrology and modern science are good for different things; astrology is more holistic and metaphysical, whereas modern science is more reductionistic and physical.
The data that scientific skeptics used to "disprove" astrology and the findings of Michel Gaugelin was falsified by the scientific skeptics. The one who received and tabulated the data resigned in protest, claiming that astrology had won fair and square.
What the presenter presents as what she has been told was her sign not actually being her sign is about equinoctial precession and the difference between the sidereal zodiac, which is used in Hindu Vedic Astrology, and the tropical zodiac, which is used in Western astrology, as well as ancient Greek or Hellenistic Astrology. Many astrologers use both systems, finding that each excels at different things. Simply put, the sidereal zodiac is a lunar / stellar frame of reference, whereas the tropical zodiac is a solar frame of reference. This is simply a misleading argument used to confuse people and smear astrology.
I had an astrology teacher once who said that astrology is disbelieved in by fundamentalists, both religious and scientific - and yes, there are scientific fundamentalists just as there are religious ones. The scientific fundamentalism starts when science becomes a belief system. Another name for scientific fundamentalism is scientism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
