There is very little scientific proof that astrology is an accurate predictor of personality traits, future destinies, love lives, or anything else that mass-market astrology claims to know. Online horoscopes can be considered a pseudoscience, but serious astrology can be surprisingly accurate. Undoubtedly, many people read their horoscopes just for entertainment or as a topic of conversation. However, some people give scientific credit to astrological predictions and consider astrology as a valid way of understanding human behavior.
A surprisingly large amount of scientific research has been carried out to evaluate the claims of astrology over the past 40 years. There is no evidence to support such claims. The astrologer also needs to address the twelve so-called houses, which represent another dimension of authority over specific areas of interest in the life of the individual. The continued belief in astrology, despite its lack of credibility, is seen as a demonstration of low scientific literacy, although some still believe in it despite having scientific knowledge.
Moreover, Gauquelin's data showed that individual professions were linked to specific planets, and these correlations, which allowed for several surprising discrepancies, supported long-held astrological beliefs. Through a process known as self-attribution, it has been shown in numerous studies that people with knowledge of astrology tend to describe their personalities in terms of traits compatible with their sun signs. Proving the validity of astrology can be difficult because there is no consensus among astrologers on what astrology is or what it can predict. Taking the three dimensions together, each sun sign is represented by a unique combination of characteristics, allowing the astrologer to make predictions about the essential characteristics of the individual, in addition to determining which sun signs are the most compatible in romantic relationships (Orion, 200.
We begin the analysis by examining to what extent astrologically favorable relationships are overrepresented among the 66,063 unions observed in the data, which translates to an average of 458.8 unions for each of the 144 unique combinations of zodiac signs. Astrologer and psychologist Michel Gauquelin claimed to have found statistical support for the Mars effect on athletes' birth dates, but it could not be replicated in later studies. An important by-product of Gauquelin's work has been to make astrologers recognize the need for rigorous statistical techniques. In a Eurobarometer survey on attitudes towards science and technology, half of the randomly selected respondents were asked how scientific they thought astrology was.
The fact that the effects were stronger for people professing to believe in astrology (Hamilton, 200) provides additional support for the hypothesis that the observed effects are driven by self-attribution (Hamilton, 200). The continued popularity of astrology may be related, at least in part, to an insufficient body of empirical research that has been able to test hypotheses formulated by astrological theory, both because of the lack of data beyond very small study populations, and because astrological predictions are often vague and so it's hard to prove. Carl Jung sought to invoke synchronicity, the claim that two events have some kind of causal connection, to explain the lack of statistically significant results in astrology from a single study he conducted. This poor reasoning includes appeals to ancient astrologers such as Kepler, despite any relevance of the topic or specific reasoning, and vague statements.
From literature, believers in astrology often tend to selectively remember those predictions that turned out to be true and do not remember those that turned out to be false. Despite their comparatively greater simplicity, astrologers widely claim that sun sign horoscopes are very informative on topics such as relationships and career, and represent what is normally found in magazines and newspapers (Crowe, 1990). . .