…and this is a 
Astrology disproven!
Category: Skepticism
Posted on: April 24, 2008 9:31 AM, by PZ Myers
It's 2008 — I think astrology has been dead for a few centuries. But OK, it's been shown to be worthless again. A large study of thousands of "time twins" — people who were born at the same time — has concluded that there are no correspondence between them.
Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.
The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative."
Big surprise.
Don't look for astrology to vanish, though. Here's the real surprise in the story.
Some of the most popular figures in the field, such as Russell Grant, Mystic Meg and Shelley von Strunckel, can earn £600,000 or more a year.
A single profitable astrology website can be worth as much as £50 million.
When the Daily Mail discovered that its expert on the zodiac, Jonathan Cainer, was about to leave the newspaper in 1999, it reportedly offered him a £1 million salary and a £1 million bonus to stay. He still preferred the offer at the Daily Express: no salary but all the money from his telephone lines.
Obviously, I'm in the wrong business. Maybe I need to start inserting the occasional horoscope reading in my blog posts.
Pisces: You will be busy exchanging ions across your gill membranes today — watch out for predators, and trust your lateral line organs.
Comments
actually I find this to be the scary part:
Astrology has been growing in popularity. Surveys suggest that a majority of people in Britain believe in it, compared with only 13 per cent 50 years ago.
and worse
A recent survey found that a third of science students subscribed to some aspects of astrology...
So the US is going more and more religious and briton is going more and more woo-y (Not sure if that is the technical term or not).
great.
Posted by: techskeptic | April 24, 2008 9:39 AM
My astrology is diff'rent; my astrology is new,
And for just a hundred dollars, I can share it all with you--
Once you've paid me, here's your lesson--it's the only one I teach:
All astrologers share just one sign--the money-sucking leech.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 24, 2008 9:40 AM
Virgo
Get over it. If you continue living up to your name, you'll be a non-event. So get out there, start dating!
Posted by: MikeD | April 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Americans have their creationism, us Brits have our astrology. Thankfully, none of the astrologers here want their rubbish taught in the classroom. They are just content in earning lots of money from newspapers. If only it could be the same across the pond.
Posted by: Matt | April 24, 2008 9:44 AM
If you want to see some major-league astrological woo, complete with huge dosages of post-hoc, check out:
http://astrology.blog.co.uk/2007/08/05/mars_square_saturn~2758094
Note to the woo-purveyors: Saturn (the automobile) was named after the saturn rocket, NOT Saturn the planet.
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 9:45 AM
What's the prediction for Cancer?
Posted by: wazza | April 24, 2008 9:49 AM
great twist on the horoscope there, PZ
Posted by: matt | April 24, 2008 9:49 AM
Well, they obviously didn't account for the distances involved between the birth places of people born at the same moment. Obviously, the effect of planet hundreds of thousands of kilometres away can be affected by which room in the hospital in which the kid was born. Go back and recalculate accouting for the difference of ten or so metres and viola! Complete correspondence!
What? The differences are still too big? Damn. Well, keep changin numbers until you have correspondence. Trust me. It works.
Posted by: (((Billy))) | April 24, 2008 9:50 AM
What's the prediction for Cancer?
You will be radiated out of existence.
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 9:51 AM
LOL, PZ, you've found a new niche! That's right up there with BBspot's Geek Horoscopes. Awesome! When do Capricorns get theirs?
Posted by: Dana Hunter | April 24, 2008 9:53 AM
I go by the Mayan calendar, so no wonder that stuff doesn't work for me.
Posted by: Gerardo Camilo | April 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Taurus
Your digestive system will grant you the ability to regurgitate chewed grass and reswallow it so that it will be broken down by special microbes.
Posted by: Brandon P. | April 24, 2008 9:55 AM
'Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, ... accused Dr Dean of seeking to "discredit astrology".'
Surely not...
Posted by: Ben | April 24, 2008 9:55 AM
Taurus
Your digestive system will grant you the ability to regurgitate chewed grass and reswallow it so that it will be broken down by special microbes.
I always thought astrology was a bunch of bull...
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 9:56 AM
I think PZ's expertise is probably limited to water signs.
Posted by: Bruce | April 24, 2008 9:56 AM
From the article:
We can't really just take the "statistics" here as being remotely reliable, because the phrase "surveys suggest" is never qualified by an explanation of who conducted the surveys and how they did so. Also, although I'm sure that many people in Britain read their horoscopes and other astrological tripe - as is also currently quite fashionable in the US - the numbers provided were cited by the biased "Association of Professional Astrologers." (...which, incidentally, is a title that strikes me as being quite humorous)
Again, the 'survey' that cited such a high student preference for astrology is cited without also citing its source, so I don't know exactly how much to trust that assertion. But even if that survey is fairly accurate, it specifically states that that third of students subscribed to "some aspects of astrology," which could just as well mean that they read their horoscope and view it as prescient - hardly indicative of an astrological world-view or preference of such a view over a scientific one.
And as for the businessmen who spend fortunes trying to find an edge or shortcut in order to make their fortunes (sarcasm definitely intended), I don't think we'll ever see an end to the stupidity of such business types, but I attribute such action to unadulterated lust for wealth rather than belief in the efficacy of the measure. I've often heard someone say something to the effect that they don't believe it, but "hey, you never know...it could work..."
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 24, 2008 9:59 AM
"Obviously, I'm in the wrong business. Maybe I need to start inserting the occasional horoscope reading in my blog posts."
Or become a TV evangelist. That's where the real money is. But, then, you'd have to lose your morals.
Posted by: Deepsix | April 24, 2008 10:02 AM
A recent survey found that ...
Ah, a Recent survey. As in one conducted by a guy named Bob Recent.
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 10:03 AM
I have nothing to add; this just deserves to be repeated. Kudos to MikeD.
Posted by: Pablo | April 24, 2008 10:05 AM
Astrology disproven!
In other news, white storks do not bring babies.
Posted by: amph | April 24, 2008 10:06 AM
In other news, white storks do not bring babies.
But what about pink storks?
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Posted by: Josh | April 24, 2008 10:10 AM
At the end of last year I wrote a series of hor(r)o(r)scopes on my blog, most of them including predictions of a zombie pandemic. The number of visitors shot up substantially, and I doubt it was my charming wit that drew them. Rather depressingly a substantial number of my visitors are still people searching for horoscopes.
Humans. Sometimes they make me want to cry.
Posted by: Ted D | April 24, 2008 10:13 AM
My favourite quote was this one:
Ah yeah... ya think?!
Posted by: Silmarillion | April 24, 2008 10:16 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | April 24, 2008 10:20 AM
An acquaintance was deeply into astrology, and she used to pester me to allow her to do my horoscope. She claimed that real astrology (not the stuff in the newspapers, for which she had great contempt) was a real science that made demonstrably correct predictions. Finally, to shut her up, I agreed to let her do my chart, and gave her all the information she asked for.
A couple days later, she showed me the results. It really was uncanny; she had absolutely nailed many of my characteristics. Admittedly, it was just anecdotal, but it was quite convincing.
Except for one unfortunate fact. I lied. Every bit of information I gave her--date of birth, time of birth, all of it--was bogus. When I asked her how she came up with such a convincing description of me, based on false data, she tried tap-dancing and equivocating, but really had no answer. Still, it all worked out for the best, because eventually she got surly and quit talking to me for a couple months.
Posted by: Epikt | April 24, 2008 10:20 AM
But... Pisces is a paraphyletic zodiacal sign! As a strict orthodox cladist I am offended. I want more taxonomically rigorous zodiacal signs.
Acanthostega: Prepare for a big change in your lifestyle. Don't be afraid to move out of your comfort zone, and remember to exploit the heavily-vascularised inner surface of your buccal cavity.
Posted by: ajay | April 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Is the actual report/study available somewhere online? Sounds like just the sort of thing I'd enjoy reading.
Posted by: DaveX | April 24, 2008 10:22 AM
The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however.
Geminis already knew that.
Posted by: Cheezits | April 24, 2008 10:24 AM
Cancer
Your suspicions are correct; no one likes you. Your greed and divisiveness will ultimately lead to doom for all involved.
Drugs will seek to distupt your DNA synthesis and mitosis. Avoid focused radiation streams.
Posted by: MikeD | April 24, 2008 10:25 AM
I believe that Weird Al had the best horoscope prediction ever in one of his songs: "The stars predict tomorrow you'll wake up, do a bunch of stuff, and then go back to sleep."
Posted by: Carlie | April 24, 2008 10:30 AM
Humans. Sometimes they make me want to cry.
Posted by: Ted D | April 24, 2008 10:13 AM
...indeed they often do the same for me, Ted. In those instances, I just go on youtube and look for the ones that make me fall out of my chair laughing.
We're quite a diverse species, aren't we? :D
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 24, 2008 10:31 AM
Wait, you mean they allowed research into this? I thought we didn't allow research into things like astrology and ID. Weird.
And this seemed appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIVeyTG9KB0
Posted by: pzph | April 24, 2008 10:33 AM
No one at Science Blogs seems to have noticed yet that the Florida Senate has passed the creationist bill. Hopefully the House will expel it.
Posted by: A Lurker | April 24, 2008 10:34 AM
Apparently astrology still pays a lot more than ID does.
There's not much doubt that ID pays better than most science does, however, so long as you're at the top. Which is impressive when you're doing essentially nothing.
It's capitalism, actually--give them what they want. They want magic, so they're buying magic.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 24, 2008 10:38 AM
Speaking as a Gemini, I can assure you that I am exactly like myself, who was born at the exact same instant as I was myself. So there! The debunking, debunked!
Posted by: A Gemini | April 24, 2008 10:39 AM
I must admit, I adore occultism of all kinds, and astrology is one of my favorites because, when you do it right, there's so much math involved. I don't BELIEVE in any of hit, but learning the content of the systems is a lot of fun.
Honestly, following astrology isn't any more destructive than professional sports, and less of a financial drain on a free society as well.
Believing in it is unfortunate, but often harmless: most people who say they 'believe in' astrology don't do so to a disabling extent. For instance, I've rarely heard of a parent letting their child die because his horoscope said that he was in for good health.
All things considered, the thing that irks me most is that people don't bother to learn to do this stuff on their own. If it were motivating people to learn trigonometry and astronomy, I would wholeheartedly endorse astrology as a hobby.
Posted by: lytefoot | April 24, 2008 10:42 AM
If I ever were to hack a newspaper's DTP system, get to put in my own copy in those columns, I think I'd go with the generally ominous and paranoia-inducing. Just for the laffs.
Gemini: Mars' dominant position through this month suggests now would be a good time to update your life insurance policy. For the duration, avoid Aries, Taurus, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and, for that matter, other Gemini, as well as those suspicious types who insist when you ask that they don't even know their sign. Large moving vehicles, falling pianos, rogue government agencies, and runaway elevators all figure prominently. Also: your neighbour isn't who he says he is.
Posted by: AJ Milne | April 24, 2008 10:44 AM
And if you're a Gemini, like me, well, you just never know what to expect**thunk**
(Fifteen points for catching this one.)
Posted by: lytefoot | April 24, 2008 10:44 AM
I'm deeply sceptical. Typical Pisces.
Posted by: Scrofulum | April 24, 2008 10:45 AM
astrology works for me, I cast horoscopes and get plenty of people telling me how accurate I am.
The problem is I do it as part of Living History events, using star charts from the 1640s. In fact, if things get busy, I just make stuff up because it's quicker.
People still tell me I've got it right, even when I remind tell them that I'm making it up. I think it's a bit like religion, a lot of people want to feel that there is a guiding force in charge of their lives.
On the other hand, maybe I'm really gifted, anyone want to sign me up for a newspaper? I'd charge a lot less than a million to write a bit of fiction each day.
Posted by: Ian | April 24, 2008 10:46 AM
So, presumably belief in astrology will now plummet, and astrologers will have to get honest jobs...
Well, no. That story appears to be from August 2003. Sadly, it seems to have had no effect on the popularity of this scam.
Posted by: Moggie | April 24, 2008 10:48 AM
Does anyone have a short horoscope for PYGMIES + DWARFS?
Posted by: DwarfPygmy | April 24, 2008 10:50 AM
Erm, I'm as happy as anyone to read stories debunking astrology, but that "news" story is dated 17 August 2003.
Though perhaps that's just the date on which astrologers predicted the study's results, and the actual study only got reported today. :-)
Posted by: John H | April 24, 2008 10:50 AM
You are my sun sign
My natal sun sign
Your Moon in Pisces
Is trine my Mars
With Pluto Rising
It's not surprising
It's not surprising
It's in your stars.
--Dr. Sun Sign (Phil Proctor)
Your Horoscope: Neptune, Pluto and Goofy have moved into your last house, leaving no room for you.
Posted by: Ken Cope | April 24, 2008 10:52 AM
I knew I'd read an interesting blog today. My horoscope said so. This "time twins" test is a good approach. The previous tests I've heard about involve "occupation twins," such as men who re-enlist in the Marine Corps, professional musicians in symphony orchestras, etc. Their birth-dates are, of course, distributed all over the calendar.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | April 24, 2008 10:54 AM
That is exactly the kind of talk you'd expect from someone of your astrological sign.
Furthermore, don't the scientist know that every time they get involved they invariably affect the results? Of course this was a false negative. Just ask all the people for whom astrology works.
Disclaimer: The above is meant to be humorous.
PS: PZ should start his own religion, and I want to be a High Priest.
Posted by: Leart | April 24, 2008 10:56 AM
lytefoot:
(Fifteen points for catching this one.)
Nice. I believe the answer is Kentucky Fried Movie (1977). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Fried_Movie
What did I win??
Posted by: Lowell | April 24, 2008 10:57 AM
I want to be a High Priest.
First, you'll have to obtain some really good drugs...
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 10:58 AM
Listen--strange people answering phones distributing astrological readings is no basis for a system of belief. Supreme prognosticative power derives from plane wave solutions of Schrodinger's time dependent equation with non-cyclical boundary conditions, not from some farcical telephonic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme prognosticative power just 'cause some dial-a-tart made a reading for you! I mean, if I went around sayin' I would have a good day just because some deluded bint had read my chart me they'd put me away!
Posted by: dennis | April 24, 2008 10:58 AM
I am shocked, truly shocked at this ridiculously inappropriate appeal to empirical evidence-- the imperialist designs of your scientism are plain to see here, P.Z. Astrology is not about anything as low and grubby as actually predicting something observable about the world-- it's about much higher things, truths about our lives too deep for your shallow mind. That, and a good living parasitizing people desperate to know if they'll ever be rich or find a hot partner (or just eager to fantasize about their prospects).
Posted by: Bryson Brown | April 24, 2008 10:59 AM
I work for a very popular - top 10 - British magazine; we recently got rid of our resident astrologer after he submitted a column for the week of 9-15 February that suggested various signs could expect romantic gestures from their partners in the coming week. Another horoscope for the same week suggested that if readers were having bother with a school essay or project, "the internet may have the answers you seek". My problem with all this is, of course, that we replaced him with another fraud.
Posted by: Joe | April 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Scorpio: You're a toxic little prick, so keep a low profile. You're safer in the boot than under it.
Aquarius: Stop carrying water for other people and think for yourself for a change!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 24, 2008 11:01 AM
So the APA is claiming that every adult in the UK reads star columns? Yeah, right.
(admittedly, I do like The Onions' horoscopes)
Posted by: MH | April 24, 2008 11:02 AM
The sidebar of the same newspaper that ran the story has a link to their horoscope section.
Posted by: Jit | April 24, 2008 11:04 AM
he submitted a column for the week of 9-15 February that suggested various signs could expect romantic gestures from their partners in the coming week
And I'll bet he was right, too.
See??? It does work after all.
I think I'll try.
Tomorrow will be Friday for all Geminis.
We'll see if I'm right.
Posted by: me | April 24, 2008 11:05 AM
Wow, astrology is bullshit, and dangerous bullshit at that when used by charlatans. Yet another thing the Catholic Church has been saying for centuries is finally 'discovered' by scientists. Imagine that...
Posted by: Quaeror | April 24, 2008 11:07 AM
ENSIWeb has a nice lesson plan wherein you give each student a personalized astrology-based personality description, have them rate how well it applies to them, then reveal that they all got identical descriptions. It's kind of fun to do.
Posted by: Carlie | April 24, 2008 11:12 AM
The only horoscopes I read are the ones in The Onion. They're scarily prescient:
"Cancer June 22 - July 22
Thanks to Pavlovian conditioning and a rather unexpected string of neighborhood accidents, you'll soon salivate every time an ice-cream truck runs over a puppy."
http://www.theonion.com/content/horoscope/apr-22-2008
Posted by: NC Paul | April 24, 2008 11:13 AM
Dr Dean is a scientist. He did not seek. He found.
Runaway elevators? Those that shoot through the roof? :-D
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 24, 2008 11:15 AM
@Epikt RE: giving a false birth date and location but still getting great results!
I'm embarrassed to admit I know a fair bit about astrology. My only defense is that its relationship with various cultures is pretty interesting. Anyway, the phenomenon you're describing is pretty common, and here's why:
Every astrological chart (a diagram relating the position of heavenly bodies at a specific time and location - often one's birth but not necessarily) contains a massive number of relationships between symbols with very flexible and very abstract meanings. There's enough variety that you can read just about anything from every chart. The difference is emphasis, which is provided almost completely by the astrologer, aka. the person analyzing the chart. The best astrological readings are done, not surprisingly, by people who know you best, or by people that are just really good at judging what people are like. Of course, all the usual techniques employed by psychics, mind-readers, and suggesters of various sorts are well applied.
If one is generous:
One can think of astrology as a layman's version of advice giving, where the advice-giver can transfer responsibility for the advice from themselves to the stars. This frees the advice-getter from feeling judged or picked-on, and opens them up to what can sometimes be pretty good advice.
If one isn't so generous:
Astrology is just another avenue to manipulate wishful thinkers.
I sort-of lean toward the later. But I'm just like that.
Posted by: Jams | April 24, 2008 11:15 AM
That was massively confirmed for me years ago when I found I shared a birthday with Mel Gibson.
Posted by: Tim | April 24, 2008 11:17 AM
Since my astrological sign is Pisces (I think, let me double-check... yeah it is), I'll pay extra close attention today to see if your predictions are accurate. I'm holding you to it, PZ!
Posted by: makita | April 24, 2008 11:18 AM
"Honestly, following astrology isn't any more destructive than professional sports, and less of a financial drain on a free society as well.
Believing in it is unfortunate, but often harmless: most people who say they 'believe in' astrology don't do so to a disabling extent."
Some people, however, do base their love lives and even finances on horoscopes. This is where it starts to get silly and possibly dangerous. Also, the horoscopes in newspapers are vacuous and presumptive. They assume that you are middle-class, married, have children and do an office job. True for some people [maybe even most of those who believe in astrology!] but certainly not for all.
Posted by: Atheistthinker | April 24, 2008 11:20 AM
As a father of twin girls born 2 min. apart I kindly ask you PZ to cast a "scientific" horoscope able to take in account this slight difference, since other astrologers have been unable up to now to explain the big difference in behavior and day to day fortunes in their lives. ;)
Posted by: allkom | April 24, 2008 11:21 AM
My twins were born one minute apart, from precisely the same location. They are as opposite in looks, taste and personality as is possible for siblings to be.
As a souvenir, I had their natal charts done - to put in their baby books - and, wouldn't you know it: they're supposed to be exactly the same.
Right.
Apparently, the only way there would be any difference at all in their charts would be if they had been born more than 4 minutes apart. I don't think that even three extra minutes would take into account THEIR personality differences.
Posted by: Katrina | April 24, 2008 11:26 AM
I see someone else has commented on the Weird Al Horoscopes but I have to add my favorite:
Libra: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone much more talented than you.
Posted by: Ted H. | April 24, 2008 11:31 AM
I swear, I once read a horoscope which said:
At least they know their audience!
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | April 24, 2008 11:33 AM
PZ wrote "A large study of thousands of "time twins"...has concluded that there are no correspondence between them."
Shouldn't be "there are no correspondence between they"?
(PZ's horoscope: "You will make a grammatical error today.")
Posted by: Paul Burnett | April 24, 2008 11:37 AM
Professor PZ! Your horoscopes are adorable!
Posted by: Elyse | April 24, 2008 11:44 AM
I generally form an intense dislike of anyone who shares my birthday. However, this is probably a false correlation, because I form an intense dislike of almost everybody.
Leo
This is a good day for taking it easy. Prospects favor a long nap in the sun or under a shady tree. Someone you are close to may bring a long-awaited gift -- enjoy it while you can!
Posted by: HP | April 24, 2008 11:46 AM
You've all probably seen this before, but it never gets old.
http://www.astrologicalmagazine.com/
Posted by: parseval | April 24, 2008 11:51 AM
As someone who was born almost at the same moment as that recorded for Michael Jackson, I can't tell you how comforted I am by this research...or would be if I wasn't a Virgo. You see, Virgos are too logical to believe in astrology.
:-)
Posted by: BAllanJ | April 24, 2008 11:56 AM
Quaeror @ #57:
Of course the Catholic Church condemns astrology; they don't want any competition for the minds of the credulous.
Posted by: MarkW | April 24, 2008 11:59 AM
Many years ago an old friend came back to visit Wales from his new home on the west coast of America with a beautiful young wife and new baby. She was having a hard time with culture shock as she'd never been away from home before - or so we thought.
After a few days I managed to get her to talk to me. Her eyes filled with tears as she explained that her astrologer had given her a full reading for her entire visit but it wasn't until she got here she realised they had forgotten about the time difference and she didn't know what to do.
Bless!
Posted by: Kitty | April 24, 2008 12:02 PM
my lateral line organs told me to stay home from work today and just catch up on reading pharyngula. So that is what I did.
Posted by: ddr | April 24, 2008 12:07 PM
Forget astrology, PZ. If you want to make some real money, the Templeton Foundation has a check with your name on it.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 24, 2008 12:25 PM
This, Quaeror, is called "wanking". Yes, all the way back to the Old Testament, astrology/soothsaying is strongly discouraged -- because it is (or once was) a religious activity associated with different gods who used to be imagined (and, I hear, are still imagined by an amazing number of Americans) to be really existing demons, whom to worship was imagined to be not merely a waste of time, but positively dangerous. Alternatively, one could be more cynical and repeat comment 74. Quaere, Quaeror! Quaere!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 24, 2008 12:34 PM
Never once did the Church say that astrology/soothsaying/magic simply does not work, that it is useless rather than actively evil. That idea seems to have come up no sooner than medieval rabbinic commentary.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 24, 2008 12:37 PM
I always trust my lateral line organs. They're what have kept me alive this long.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | April 24, 2008 12:41 PM
In Adams' immortal words :
"I know that astrology isn't a science,' said Gail. "Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or, what's that strange thing you British play?'
"Er, cricket? Self-loathing?"
"Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. (...) In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. (...) The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.
In Mostly Harmless
Posted by: Abie | April 24, 2008 12:49 PM
@#78
"(and, I hear, are still imagined by an amazing number of Americans) to be really existing demons, whom to worship was imagined to be not merely a waste of time, but positively dangerous."
You mean Buffy was a documentary?
Posted by: Kitty | April 24, 2008 12:51 PM
I always liked Keplers remark,
"Astrolgy is Astronomy's daughter, and in order to feed her intelligent mother, she plays whore and sells herself to whoever wants and can afford to pay".
Probably true at the time, not so much now.
Posted by: Don | April 24, 2008 1:12 PM
"You are very fat and stupid and persistently wear a ridiculous hat which you should be ashamed of."
Posted by: jim | April 24, 2008 1:16 PM
I'm a Capricorn and therefore far too rational to believe in silly horoscopes. Those ditzy Virgos, on the other hand...
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | April 24, 2008 1:25 PM
Now I know why psychics don't worry about choosing the winning lottery numbers for themselves - they are moonlighting as astrologers and already hit the big time.
Posted by: mikmik | April 24, 2008 1:34 PM
Virgo
Get over it. If you continue living up to your name, you'll be a non-event. So get out there, start dating!
I think that my dating would make my husband even crabbier than if he were being menaced by a cephalopod!
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | April 24, 2008 1:49 PM
I always liked Douglas Adams' take on it, from Mostly Harmless:
"I know that astrology isn't a science,' said Gail. "Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis or, what's that strange thing you British play?'
"Er, cricket? Self-loathing?"
"Parliamentary democracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing their indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people. "
Posted by: Julia | April 24, 2008 1:52 PM
I swear, I once read a horoscope which said:
As a Libran, you are so gullible and trusting that you could easily be taken in by a mystic or a scam artist. Ring my Starline to find out more.
The British TV critic Charlie Brooker once dedicated part of his show to British TV psychics; he rang various cable TV psychic channels and asked "Can you help me be less gullible?" He also memorably compared parts of The Baby Whisperer to Blue Velvet...
Posted by: Joe | April 24, 2008 1:54 PM
1 word: "Ophiuchus"
If astronomy is so true, how come the months no longer line up with the supposedly corresponding sign? How come it's so bad, they had to take 1 out? 1 so famous that our doctors still use the symbol?
Posted by: K | April 24, 2008 2:31 PM
Brilliant horoscopes! Nothing works quite like those to liven up my day.
Capricorn
Apical meristems will continue to dominate your thoughts. Ignore distractions as you focus on the goal: motion through your stomachs. While lactation may prove the key to success, the highly prized intellectual fodder of your cecal product may prove too alluring for gullible hominids to resist.
Posted by: Phoca | April 24, 2008 2:32 PM
Scoffers, take another look! The astrology guy "accused Dr Dean of seeking to 'discredit astrology'". The whole study must be wrong if they wanted to discredit astrology, right? After all, what kind of person would want to do such a thing?
Posted by: beagledad | April 24, 2008 2:33 PM
See also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7351199.stm
Consumer protection regs are due to be debated in Commons on 6 May.Anyone care to predict the outcome?
Posted by: Gav | April 24, 2008 2:38 PM
Taurus: Contemplate domestic turmoil.
Aquarius: Abandon hope for future plans.
ahh, TMBG...