[Sabertooth]

That we have to have a detailed scientific study in order to refute astrology in the 21st century is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.

That there are still people who will ignore this powerful refutation leaves me speechless.

Funny thing about astrology.

The signs of the Zodiac were set more than 2000 years ago, early in the Age of Pisces. Due to the Precession of the Equinoxes, we are now in the Age of Aquarius. The practical upshot of this is that everyone's astrological sign is really the one after whatever they think it might be. If you think you're a Cancer, you're really a Leo, etc.

Yep. Everyone following their uncannily accurate horoscopes in the daily papers is reading the wrong sign.

[VadeRetro]

If you think you're a Cancer, you're really a Leo, etc.

All my life I've been doing it wrong! All six or seven times!

[longshadow]

Yep. Everyone following their uncannily accurate horoscopes in the daily papers is reading the wrong sign.

Exactly.

[PatrickHenry]

Besides the study described in this article, there have been many others, all with the same results. I recall reading about a survey of the birthdates of men who had recently -- at the time of the survey -- re-inlisted in the US Marines (surely a group likely to share some zodiacal influences). Results? Birthdates all over the calendar, random distribution. Similarly, a study of memmbers of a symphony orchestra. But those were "results oriented" tests, to see what astrological signs those similar people had in common. The test in the article starts out with similar astrology charts, and finds random results. It's nice to see the flip side is consistent.

And who was the comic who asked recently: "Why aren't astrologers winning all the lotteries?"